If your interim maintenance application has been pending for months and the court will not decide it, the first thing to understand is that delay does not shrink the claim. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v Neha directed that maintenance in all cases be awarded from the date the application was filed, so every month of interim maintenance delay in India accrues as arrears rather than vanishing. What delay costs you is cash flow today, and that is usually a problem the file itself can solve.
What follows is what the statutes promise on timing, what the Supreme Court requires of both sides, and what to do when a court lets an interim application drift.
What the law promises on timing, and what it does not
All three maintenance routes carry a statutory sixty day expectation at the interim stage. The catch is the wording. Parliament used "as far as possible" and "shall endeavour", which courts read as directory. Breach voids nothing, but it gives you a standard you can put on the record.
| Route | Provision | Usual forum | Interim stage timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maintenance pendente lite in a matrimonial petition | Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act 1955 | Family Court or District Court | Sixty days from service of notice, as far as possible |
| Standalone maintenance claim | Section 144, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, replacing Section 125 of the 1973 Code | Magistrate of the first class, or a Family Court | Sixty days from service of notice, as far as possible |
| Monetary relief in a domestic violence case | Sections 20 and 23, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 | Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate | First hearing ordinarily within three days of receipt, then sixty days to dispose of, by endeavour |
One drafting point trips people up. The Domestic Violence Act as printed still refers to Section 125 of the 1973 Code, which Section 531 of the Sanhita repealed from 1 July 2024. That reference is now read as Section 144, and the substance did not change.
It helps to see where the sixty days actually goes.
Notice and service
The clock starts at service, not filing. Bad addresses, refused summons and substituted service applications routinely consume the first several weeks.
Pleadings at the interim stage
Reply, rejoinder, objections to the affidavit of assets. The Supreme Court warned against elaborate interim pleadings, yet this is where the calendar disappears.
The affidavit standoff
Neither side wants to disclose first. The Rajnesh outer limit runs only from the date affidavits are filed, which is exactly why stalling works.
Docket pressure
Family Courts list very large boards. Even a well prepared application slips if nobody presses for a date and a reasoned order.
Why interim maintenance delay in India happens at all
Delay is rarely judicial indifference. In October 2025 the Delhi High Court, deciding a criminal revision from a maintenance order, observed that it is flooded with challenges showing a pattern of deviation from settled principles, and that despite Rajnesh v Neha the guidelines are not followed in letter and spirit. It was equally candid about the other side. Family Court dockets are extremely high, and much of the delay comes from parties who file affidavits of income and assets late or evasively, sometimes deliberately to stall.
That tells you where the lever is. If delay flows from an incomplete record, complete the record and force the consequence of the other side's non compliance. Running to the High Court with your own affidavit still not on file rarely produces more than a direction to expedite.
Key takeaway. Delay does not defeat the claim. Section 144(2) of the Sanhita allows maintenance to run from the date of application, and Rajnesh v Neha directed that it be awarded from the date of filing. Pendency converts a monthly entitlement into arrears.
The Rajnesh v Neha machinery most litigants under use
Rajnesh v Neha was decided on 4 November 2020 by Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice R. Subhash Reddy in Criminal Appeal No. 730 of 2020, reported at AIR 2021 SC 569 and (2021) 2 SCC 324. Part of it is famous. The ignored part is the timetable.
Using Article 136 read with Article 142, the Court directed that the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities at Enclosures I, II and III be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending ones. The applicant files a concise application with limited pleadings plus the affidavit. The respondent must reply with his affidavit within four weeks at most, and courts may not grant more than two opportunities.
Three consequences follow if he does not, and they are the practical heart of the judgment. If he takes more than two adjournments and the conduct is wilful and contumacious, the court may consider striking off his defence. If he simply fails to file in time, the court may decide on the applicant's affidavit and the pleadings on record. If the disclosure is disputed, the aggrieved party may seek leave to serve interrogatories and seek production under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the court may invoke Order X, Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (previously Section 165, Evidence Act 1872) and Section 109 on burden of proving a fact especially within one's knowledge (previously Section 106).
Two further directions are worth quoting. False statements can attract proceedings under what was Section 340 of the old Code, now Section 379 of the Sanhita, and contempt. And for parties from the economically weaker sections, below the poverty line, or casual labourers, the affidavit is dispensed with.
Then the outer limit. The court must endeavour to decide the interim application by a reasoned order within four to six months at the latest, after the affidavits of disclosure are filed. Read that trigger carefully. The clock begins when the affidavits are in, not when you filed. Getting the respondent's affidavit on record, or its absence recorded, is the most valuable step available.
Step by step: what to do when the court will not decide
This sequence runs from cheapest to costliest. Skipping the early steps weakens the later ones, because a High Court will ask what you did below.
- Audit your own compliance. Confirm your concise application and affidavit of disclosure, in the correct Rajnesh format, are on file, properly sworn and annexed.
- Confirm service. Put the service report, postal track and process server's endorsement on record, and take an order recording the date of service. The sixty day clock runs from it.
- File a short early hearing application reciting the sixty day proviso, the date of service, the elapsed period and the Rajnesh directions. Ask for a dated direction, not a general request to expedite.
- Press the affidavit consequence. If the respondent has exhausted his two opportunities, apply for a decision on your affidavit and the pleadings on record, and in a fit case for his defence to be struck off.
- Use the disclosure tools. Where the affidavit is evasive, seek leave for interrogatories and production under Order XI, and ask the court to put the burden of proving his income on him.
- Ask for ad interim relief meanwhile. Courts do fix a modest stop gap sum, and Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act gives the Magistrate express interim and ex parte power.
- Record every adjournment. Ask that the order sheet show who sought it and why. A sheet listing eight adjournments at the respondent's instance is what a High Court will want to see.
- Escalate only if the record justifies it. Move the High Court under Article 227 for a direction to decide within a fixed time, annexing the order sheet and your compliance papers.
Common mistake. Filing overlapping claims under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Sanhita and the Domestic Violence Act without disclosing the earlier ones. Rajnesh makes that disclosure mandatory and requires the later court to consider set off. Concealment invites an adverse view and a slower hearing.
Going upstairs: writ, revision, appeal and transfer
Which door you knock on depends on the complaint. No order at all is a different grievance from a bad order, and the routes differ.
Where an order exists and you want it set aside, note what is not available. Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 allows an appeal from every Family Court order that is not interlocutory. Section 19(2) bars an appeal from an order under what was Chapter IX of the old Code, now Chapter X of the Sanhita. Section 19(4) gives a revisional power over those orders, again excluding interlocutory ones, and Section 19(5) shuts out anything else. An interim order sits squarely in that space. The Jharkhand High Court held in March 2025, reported as 2025 LiveLaw (Jha) 21, that a pendente lite order under Section 24 is interlocutory, that no appeal lies under Section 19, and that Article 227 is maintainable. In Delhi such challenges are commonly filed as criminal revisions.
Where the complaint is delay rather than error, Article 227 is the workhorse. You are not asking the High Court to fix quantum, only for a supervisory direction that the pending application be decided by a reasoned order within a stated period. That narrow prayer is the likeliest to succeed. A domestic violence order carries its own appeal under Section 29 to the Court of Session, and a Magistrate's order under Section 144 is revisable under Sections 438 and 442 of the Sanhita, which replaced Sections 397 and 401 of the old Code.
Transfer is a separate tool and often misunderstood. Petitions under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or Sections 446 and 447 of the Sanhita replacing Sections 406 and 407, exist for convenience and safety, not to punish a slow court. Transfer resets your file before a judge who has never read it.
Deadline warning. An appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act runs thirty days from service of the order, and Section 19(3) of the Family Courts Act also allows thirty days. Separately, the proviso to Section 144(3) of the Sanhita bars a recovery warrant unless applied for within one year of the amount falling due.
When you escalate, be clear which of these four you are asking for.
A date, not a judgment
A supervisory petition seeking a direction to decide within a fixed period. Narrow, quick to draft, and the most commonly granted relief in delay matters.
A consequence for non filing
An order deciding the application on the applicant's affidavit and the pleadings, because the respondent exhausted his two opportunities under Rajnesh.
Money in the interim
A stop gap sum to bridge the wait, or in a domestic violence matter an interim or ex parte order under Section 23 of the 2005 Act.
Recovery after the order
Enforcement under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 20(6) of the Domestic Violence Act, or Section 147 of the Sanhita, then execution under Order XXI.
Costs and realistic timelines
The figures here are indicative ranges only, they differ by state and court, and are not a quotation. Court fee on a maintenance application and on an early hearing application is nominal in most states, often a few hundred rupees or less, and legal aid is available through the State and District Legal Services Authorities. Professional fees vary with forum and complexity, so ask for a written engagement letter setting out fees by stage.
On timing, an uncontested interim application with both affidavits on file can realistically be decided in roughly two to six months, broadly consistent with the four to six month outer limit in Rajnesh v Neha. Where disclosure is fought, a year or more is common. An Article 227 petition usually takes weeks to months to reach a first effective hearing, and yields a time bound direction, not a decision on the money.
A note from practice
What we see most often is not a judge refusing to act, but a file allowed to become unfit for a quick decision. The affidavit of assets is in the wrong format or has no annexures, the service report is missing, the order sheet does not record who sought the last four adjournments, and nobody has put the sixty day proviso or the Rajnesh timetable in writing before the court. Close those gaps, file a short application asking for a dated direction, and matters that had been drifting often get listed and decided without a trip to the High Court. Litigants also underestimate the date of application rule: ask your advocate to work out the running arrears figure, because seeing that number tends to change how both sides behave.
For related reading, see Interim Maintenance in Divorce, The Maintenance Affidavit under Rajnesh v Neha and Recovering Unpaid Maintenance, along with our family and divorce law practice page.
Related guides and where to get help
- Interim Maintenance During Divorce in India: A Guide to HMA s.24
- Can a Working Wife Claim Maintenance in India?
- Maintenance for Parents and Senior Citizens in India
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the sixty day timeline binding on the court?
No. Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 144 of the Sanhita say the application shall be disposed of as far as possible within sixty days, and Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act says the Magistrate shall endeavour to do so. Directory, but still a standard you can invoke.
Do I lose anything by the delay?
Not in principle. Section 144(2) allows maintenance to be made payable from the date of the application, and Rajnesh v Neha directed that it be awarded from the date of filing. What you lose is liquidity, which is why ad interim relief matters.
Can the court decide without the other side's affidavit of assets?
Yes. Rajnesh v Neha says that on failure to file in time the court may decide on the applicant's affidavit and the pleadings on record. This has to be asked for, because courts rarely do it on their own.
Can the respondent's defence be struck off for stalling?
It can be considered where he takes more than two adjournments for the affidavit and the conduct is wilful and contumacious. For non payment of an existing order the Supreme Court treated it as a last resort, noting authority that the power did not exist under the old Section 125.
Should I appeal an interim maintenance order I disagree with?
Usually you cannot. Such an order is generally treated as interlocutory, so Section 19 of the Family Courts Act does not open an appeal. The route is Article 227, or a revision in some High Courts. Confirm local practice first.
Will transferring my case make it faster?
Unlikely. Transfer under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure or Sections 446 and 447 of the Sanhita is meant for convenience and safety, and it hands your file to a judge who must start from scratch.
Can I claim under all three statutes at once?
The claims can coexist, but you must disclose the earlier proceedings and orders, and the later court must consider adjustment or set off. You cannot be paid separately and cumulatively under each statute for the same period.
How do I recover the money once an order is passed?
Rajnesh v Neha directed enforcement under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 20(6) of the Domestic Violence Act and what is now Section 147 of the Sanhita, and execution as a money decree under Order XXI.
This article is published for general information and public legal education. It is not legal advice, creates no lawyer and client relationship, and is not an offer or invitation to engage professional services. The law is stated as at August 2026 and procedure varies between High Courts.
