Interpreting Ambiguous Interim Maintenance Orders and Enforcing Payment from the Date of Application: A Detailed Commentary on Manisha Amit Khajanchi v. Amit Kanakraj Khajanchi (Bombay High Court, 2025)

1. Introduction

This judgment of the Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), delivered by Justice Manjusha Deshpande on 12 December 2025, in Manisha Amit Khajanchi v. Amit Kanakraj Khajanchi, addresses three recurrent and important questions in matrimonial litigation:

How should the quantum of interim maintenance be assessed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”)?
How should an ambiguously worded maintenance order—specifically, the use of the word “each” in the operative clause—be interpreted?
From which date is interim maintenance payable—date of application or date of order—and how do interim “consent arrangements” affect this?

The Court partly allowed the wife’s writ petition challenging the Family Court’s interim maintenance order, and in doing so:

Clarified the interpretation of the word “each” in the operative portion of an interim maintenance order where the reasoning and wording appear inconsistent.
Reaffirmed, with reference to binding Supreme Court authority, that maintenance under Section 24 HMA is ordinarily payable from the date of the application, not from the date of the order.
Clarified how interim amounts paid under consent terms are to be adjusted while computing arrears when maintenance is made payable from the date of application.

The decision therefore has both interpretive significance (in reading Family Court orders) and procedural significance (in standardising the commencement date for interim maintenance).

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 Parties and marriage

Petitioner-wife: Manisha Amit Khajanchi, 46 years, educated up to 12th standard, a homemaker with no independent source of income.
Respondent-husband: Amit Kanakraj Khajanchi, 47 years, Commerce graduate, engaged in and managing the family export business, Khajanchi Exports.
Children: Two daughters:
- Sana (born 31.12.2008)
- Yana (born 27.01.2014)
Marriage: solemnised on 11.04.2014.

2.2 Parallel proceedings

The husband filed a divorces petition (MJ Petition No. A-1899 of 2020) in the Family Court at Bandra on 10.09.2020.
The wife filed:
- Maintenance Petition No. C-2 of 2021 under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (“HAMA”) on 04.12.2020; and
- An application for interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA (Exh. 10-A) in the husband’s divorce petition on 14.12.2020.

2.3 Interim consent arrangement

Pending the Section 24 application, the parties entered into interim Consent Terms on 12.02.2021, under which:

The husband agreed to pay Rs. 20,000 per month towards the daily expenses of the wife and the two daughters.
This arrangement was expressly interim—to continue until the Section 24 application was decided by the Family Court.

2.4 The Family Court’s interim maintenance order (22.08.2023)

By order dated 22.08.2023, Family Court No. 7, Bandra:

Allowed the Section 24 application partly.
Directed the husband:
- “to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. each to the respondent wife and their two daughters, from the date of passing of this order.”

This phrasing gave rise to a serious ambiguity:

Wife’s interpretation: Rs. 50,000 per month to her, and Rs. 50,000 per month to each of the two daughters (total: Rs. 1,50,000 per month).
Husband’s interpretation: Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife, and Rs. 50,000 per month for the two daughters collectively (total: Rs. 1,00,000 per month).

The Family Court further ordered that the maintenance was payable from the date of the order, not from the date of the application.

2.5 Writ petition before the High Court

Aggrieved, the wife filed the present writ petition seeking:

Setting aside of the Family Court’s order dated 22.08.2023.
Enhancement of interim maintenance to Rs. 3,50,000 per month for herself and the two daughters, from the date of the application, or such other higher amount as the Court deemed fit.

3. Summary of the High Court’s Judgment

The Bombay High Court partly allowed the writ petition and modified the Family Court’s order as follows:

Interpretation of “each”:
- The expression “Rs. 50,000/- p.m. each to the respondent wife and their two daughters” must be read to mean:
  - Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife; and
  - Rs. 50,000 per month to each of the two daughters individually.
- Thus, total interim maintenance is Rs. 1,50,000 per month (50,000 × 3).
Date from which maintenance is payable:
- Maintenance under Section 24 HMA must be awarded from the date of the application, not from the date of the order, in line with:
  - Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324; and
  - Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3886.
- The Family Court’s omission to follow this mandate, without assigning reasons, was held to be legally erroneous.
Adjustment for interim consent payments:
- Given that under the interim Consent Terms the husband had been paying Rs. 20,000 per month from 12.02.2021, that amount must be adjusted while calculating arrears payable from the date of the application.
Quantum of maintenance otherwise upheld:
- The wife’s claim of Rs. 3,50,000 per month was not fully accepted; instead, the Court confirmed Rs. 50,000 per month each for the wife and each daughter, but:
  - Clarified that it applies individually to each daughter (not collectively); and
  - Directed that it should run from the date of application.

Final operative directions (as modified):

The petitioner-wife and the two daughters are each entitled to interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month from the date of the Section 24 application.
The amounts of Rs. 20,000 per month already paid under the interim Consent Terms shall be deducted while computing arrears.

4. Key Legal Issues Considered

4.1 Quantum of interim maintenance

The Court had to assess whether Rs. 50,000 per month each for the wife and the two daughters was appropriate, having regard to:

The admitted monthly income of the husband (Rs. 3,98,870 as per his affidavit of assets and liabilities).
His additional, less clearly quantified, sources of income (e.g., rental income, beneficial interest in a family trust, multiple immovable properties).
The standard of living enjoyed by the wife and children before separation.
The wife’s lack of independent income or employable skills, and her role as primary caregiver.
The necessary and actual expenses incurred on the children’s education, activities, and upkeep.

4.2 Interpretation of “each” in the Family Court’s order

The core interpretive issue was:

Does “Rs. 50,000/- p.m. each to the respondent wife and their two daughters” mean:
- Rs. 50,000 to the wife and Rs. 50,000 each to the two daughters (wife + two daughters = three recipients), or
- Rs. 50,000 to the wife and Rs. 50,000 to the two daughters together?

The High Court treated this as a substantive ambiguity with real financial consequences, requiring resolution by reading the operative part in light of the reasoning and the economic facts.

4.3 Date from which maintenance is payable

The third issue was whether the Family Court was justified in directing maintenance from the date of the order, as opposed to the date of the application, especially in the light of:

The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021).
Subsequent reaffirmation in Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain (2024).
The Nagpur Bench decision in Sau. Pradnya @ Anjali w/o Ajay Kukde v. Ajay s/o Bakaramji Kukde, FCA No. 14/2017 (22.02.2021).
The existence of an interim consent arrangement for Rs. 20,000 per month.

5. Precedents and Statutory Framework

5.1 Statutory basis: Section 24 HMA and HAMA

Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
- Enables the Court to order one spouse to pay the other spouse “maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceeding” where the latter has no independent income sufficient for support.
- The relief operates during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings (e.g., divorce petitions).
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956:
- Provides a broader substantive right of maintenance for wife and children (Sections 18 and 20), but in this case the focus is primarily on interim relief under Section 24 HMA in the divorce petition.

5.2 Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324

This landmark Supreme Court judgment issued comprehensive directions to streamline and bring uniformity to maintenance proceedings across the country. Relevant to this case are:

Affidavit of assets and liabilities: Parties must file detailed affidavits disclosing income, expenditure, assets, liabilities, and standard of living.
Date of effect: The Supreme Court directed that maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of the application, not the date of the order, absent special reasons to the contrary.
Holistic approach: Courts must take a “holistic” view—looking beyond formal documents to lifestyle, conduct, and likely unreported income.

The petitioner specifically relied on Paragraph 113 of Rajnesh to argue that the Family Court erred in starting maintenance from the date of order.

5.3 Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3886

The High Court quoted Parvin Kumar Jain to reinforce that:

“relief under Section 24 can only be granted from the date of filing of the application.”

This case thus reaffirmed the principle laid down in Rajnesh and removed any residual doubt on whether courts retain wide discretion to shift the commencement date to the date of order, absent clear reasoning.

5.4 Sau. Pradnya @ Anjali w/o Ajay Kukde v. Ajay s/o Bakaramji Kukde, FCA No. 14 of 2017 (Nagpur Bench, 22.02.2021)

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court held that:

Maintenance should ordinarily be awarded from the date of the application; and
Any deviation from this requires reasoned justification.

This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh and applied them within the Bombay High Court’s jurisdiction. Justice Deshpande relies on it as a local reiteration of the same principle.

5.5 Kiran Tomar & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1539

Cited by the wife, this Supreme Court decision is referenced for the proposition that:

Income Tax Returns (ITRs) do not necessarily provide an accurate guide to a person’s real income, especially in matrimonial conflicts.
Courts must adopt a realistic, not merely formalistic, approach to income assessment, considering the possibility of under-reporting or strategic financial arrangements.

Although the High Court does not analyse Kiran Tomar in detail, its logic underlies the emphasis on:

Taking into account lifestyle indicators such as luxury vehicles (a BMW Gran Turismo), multiple properties, and trust structures; and
Not treating ITRs or formal shareholdings in the wife’s name as conclusive evidence of her independent income.

6. Court’s Legal Reasoning: Detailed Analysis

6.1 Approach to quantum of interim maintenance

(a) Income of the husband

The husband’s admitted monthly income in his affidavit of assets and liabilities was Rs. 3,98,870. The Court accepted this figure as a baseline, but also noted:

He holds a 1/3 share in the family export business, Khajanchi Exports.
He owns or occupies multiple residential properties, including:
- A 2 BHK flat at Lodha Amara; and
- Inherited property at Bhagya Apartments, Dadar (Prabhadevi), where he resides.
There are alleged additional rental incomes (e.g., Saba Palace, Khar West, Mumbai, and rental from Bhagya Apartments) which the wife alleged were suppressed.
A family trust, of which the wife was initially a beneficiary, was dissolved and he effectively became the sole beneficiary.

The Court observed that:

“Apart from the admitted income from the business, the other sources of income are available with the Respondent, which is not denied by him.”

It further noted that after deducting Rs. 60,000 claimed by the husband as his own personal monthly expenses, more than Rs. 3 lakhs per month remained at his disposal.

(b) Needs and standard of living of the wife and children

The Court underscored that:

Maintenance is not a fixed percentage of the husband’s income; it must be “in proportion with the needs of the children” and the spouse.
The wife is a homemaker with limited education, no independent source of income, and primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of two growing daughters.
The daughters are accustomed to a certain standard of living, reflected in:
- Schooling at Bombay Scottish School.
- Expenditure on tuition, transport, extracurricular activities.
- Overall lifestyle including residence and consumption, as seen from credit card bills and medicine purchases paid by the husband.

(c) Wife’s claimed expenses and Court’s evaluation

The wife claimed monthly expenses of Rs. 3,87,333, but the Court noted:

She had not provided a detailed, itemised break-up of this figure.
In the absence of documentary substantiation, the Court viewed this claim as inflated, particularly in relation to the daughters (claimed Rs. 1,00,000 per month each).

However, the Court also found the husband’s position inadequate:

He argued that since he voluntarily bore specific educational and other expenses, Rs. 50,000 per month collectively for the two daughters was sufficient.
The Court disagreed with leaving their maintenance “to the discretion or mercy of the Respondent,” insisting on a legally fixed sum reflecting their ongoing needs.

(d) Balancing act and conclusion on quantum

Balancing these considerations, the Court:

Did not accept the wife’s demand of Rs. 3,50,000 per month as justified on the record.
Also held that Rs. 50,000 collectively for both daughters was “inadequate and very less” given the standard of living and the father’s means.
Concluded that Rs. 50,000 per month for each of the three (wife + two daughters), i.e., Rs. 1,50,000 per month in total, was reasonable at the interim stage.

There is a clear emphasis on reasonableness and sufficiency, rather than mechanical adherence to either party’s claimed figures.

6.2 Interpretation of the word “each” in the Family Court’s order

(a) Source of ambiguity

The operative part of the Family Court’s order stated:

“The husband is directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- p.m. each to the respondent wife and their two daughters from the date of passing of this order.”

Two competing interpretations emerged:

Collective interpretation (husband’s view): Rs. 50,000 to wife + Rs. 50,000 total for both daughters.
Individual interpretation (wife’s view): Rs. 50,000 to wife + Rs. 50,000 each to the two daughters.

(b) Reading the order in context

The High Court rejected a purely literal or grammatical reading detached from context. Instead, it:

Emphasised the Family Court’s own reasoning, where it had:
- Recorded the husband’s monthly income at Rs. 3,98,870; and
- Described Rs. 50,000 for two daughters of growing age as “a meager amount” and “inadequate and very less.”
Noted that:
- The amount “Rs. 50,000/-” was mentioned first, followed by the word “each” before referring to the wife and “their two daughters”.
- The linguistic placement of “each” strongly suggested individual application.

In particular, Justice Deshpande held:

“At the beginning of the operative order itself, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been mentioned and it is followed by the word ‘each’ to the Respondent-wife and their two daughters. It will have to be interpreted as Rs. 50,000/- to the wife and each of the daughters individually.”

This is a classic example of purposive and contextual interpretation of an order, rather than hyper-technical parsing; the Court reads the operative clause in harmony with the recorded findings on adequacy and the financial context.

(c) Principle emerging

The decision implicitly lays down an important interpretive principle:

Where the reasoning and operative portion of a maintenance order appear ambiguous or inconsistent, the order must be construed in a manner that:
- Is consistent with the Court’s own findings on adequacy and the parties’ means; and
- Favours a beneficial construction protecting the rights and needs of the financially dependent spouse and children.

Thus, in family law, ambiguity is not resolved in a way that unduly restricts dependents’ maintenance, especially when the lower court has already considered the awarded sum “meagre”.

6.3 Date from which maintenance is payable

(a) The general rule: from date of application

Justice Deshpande clearly reaffirmed the principle from Rajnesh v. Neha and Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain:

Maintenance under Section 24 HMA should ordinarily be awarded from the date of the application.
Deviating from this rule requires cogent reasons, which must be recorded.

The Family Court had started maintenance from the date of the order without providing any reasons for departure. The High Court held:

This failure violated the binding mandate of the Supreme Court.
Such an omission constituted an “error apparent on the face of record.”

(b) Role of interim Consent Terms

The husband argued that because the wife had been receiving Rs. 20,000 per month under interim Consent Terms from 12.02.2021, it was appropriate for the Family Court to award maintenance only from the date of the Section 24 order.

The High Court rejected this argument:

The Consent Terms were explicitly an interim arrangement during the COVID-19 peak, pending the decision on interim maintenance.
They did not waive or limit the wife’s right to seek maintenance from the date of application on proper adjudication of her Section 24 claim.
The interim amount of Rs. 20,000 was a stop-gap measure, not a final quantification.

The Court held:

“The Consent Terms entered between the parties did not create any bar for the Court to grant maintenance from the date of application… the Petitioner had agreed to that amount, without prejudice to her right to receive the amount of maintenance quantified by the Court.”

(c) Adjustment of arrears in light of interim payments

To avoid unfair double payment, the High Court clarified how to reconcile the general rule with the interim Consent Terms:

Maintenance is payable at Rs. 50,000 per month each for the wife and each daughter from the date of the Section 24 application.
However, when computing arrears from that date:
- The amount of Rs. 20,000 per month already paid under the interim arrangement must be deducted (adjusted).

This approach:

Preserves the substantive benefit of the Supreme Court’s rule (date of application); and
Maintains equity by crediting the husband for amounts already paid.

6.4 Use of writ jurisdiction

The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 (and/or revisional jurisdiction under Article 226) to:

Correct the Family Court’s failure to apply binding Supreme Court precedent on the date from which maintenance is payable.
Clarify the interpretation of the ambiguous operative portion regarding “each”.

The Court emphasised that the Family Court:

Did not properly assess the wife’s financial vulnerability and caregiver role.
Did not correctly apply the mandatory rule on date of commencement.

These were treated as legal errors warranting interference, even at the interim stage, to prevent continuing prejudice to the wife and children.

7. Complex Concepts Simplified

7.1 Interim maintenance under Section 24 HMA

Section 24 HMA allows a financially weaker spouse to seek:

Maintenance pendente lite – money for day-to-day living expenses while the case is pending; and
Litigation expenses – costs of hiring lawyers, court appearances, etc.

Key features:

It is temporary and lasts only while the main matrimonial case (e.g., divorce) is pending.
It is designed to level the playing field so that neither spouse is procedurally handicapped due to lack of funds.
It looks at:
- Income and resources of both spouses.
- Needs and reasonable expenses.
- Standard of living enjoyed during the marriage.

7.2 Date of application vs. date of order

There is often a lag between:

The date on which the spouse files an interim maintenance application; and
The date on which the court actually decides that application.

If maintenance is only made payable from the date of the order, the spouse and children receive no compensation for the waiting period, even though their needs existed throughout this time. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh and Parvin Kumar Jain therefore held that:

As a rule, maintenance should start from the date of application.
This ensures that the delay in judicial decision-making does not prejudice the needy spouse.

7.3 Consent Terms

“Consent Terms” are written agreements recorded by the court, reflecting a settlement or interim arrangement between the parties.

In this case, they fixed an interim payment of Rs. 20,000 per month pending decision on the Section 24 application.
They are typically binding unless varied or set aside, but:
- They do not ordinarily override statutory rights or binding precedent on substantive entitlements, unless expressly so intended.
- They are often “without prejudice” to the parties’ rights to claim more or less at final adjudication.

7.4 Affidavit of assets and liabilities

Following Rajnesh v. Neha, parties in maintenance proceedings must file detailed affidavits setting out:

Employment, income, bank accounts.
Immovable and movable properties.
Regular monthly expenses.
Loans, liabilities, investments, and other financial obligations.

The Court in this case used those affidavits as a starting point but recognised, consistently with Kiran Tomar, that:

Formal declarations may not capture the entire economic reality, particularly where there are family businesses, trusts, and unreported income.

7.5 “Holistic view” of income and lifestyle

When spouses are in conflict, financial disclosures may be:

Understated (by the paying spouse) to limit maintenance exposure; or
Overstated (by the recipient spouse) to inflate claims.

Hence, courts:

Look at lifestyle indicators:
- Luxury cars (e.g., the husband’s BMW Gran Turismo).
- High-end schooling and extracurriculars.
- Multiple properties and trust benefits.
Cross-check financial documents with the standard of living actually enjoyed during the marriage.

8. Impact and Significance of the Judgment

8.1 For Family Courts and drafting of orders

This decision highlights the need for:

Precision in wording:
- Family Courts must draft operative orders clearly, especially when using terms like “each” or “both the children”.
- Ambiguity can lead to conflicting interpretations and additional litigation.
Consistency with reasoning:
- The quantum fixed in the operative portion must reflect the Court’s assessment of adequacy and need in the reasoning section.
- If an amount is described as “meagre” for two children, the final order should not effectively ratify that meagre amount by interpretive ambiguity.

8.2 Reinforcement of the “date of application” rule

By firmly applying Rajnesh and Parvin Kumar Jain, the Bombay High Court:

Reinforces that maintenance is not discretionary as to commencement date in the absence of recorded reasons.
Clarifies that interim consent arrangements do not obviate the obligation to award maintenance from the date of application; they only affect arrears computation via adjustments.

This will likely influence:

How Family Courts across Maharashtra frame commencement dates in maintenance orders; and
How arrears are computed in cases where some payments have been made informally or via consent during pendency.

8.3 Protection of homemaker spouses and children

The judgment underscores that:

A homemaker spouse’s economic dependency is a substantive factor, not a weakness to be exploited.
Children’s entitlement to maintenance must be:
- Consistent with the parents’ lifestyle and resources; and
- Fixed by court order rather than left to voluntary discretion.

By ensuring Rs. 50,000 per month per child, and that this amount runs from the date of application, the Court:

Provides real economic security during the pendency of protracted matrimonial proceedings.
Discourages tactics of underpayment or delay in adjudicating interim claims.

8.4 Guidance for litigants and counsel

The decision sends practical messages to practitioners:

For payor spouses (usually husbands):
- Understating income or relying on ambiguous wording to minimise payments will likely be corrected on judicial review.
- Voluntary payments will be credited, but they cannot be used to defeat statutory rights from the date of application.
For recipient spouses (usually wives):
- They should maintain records of interim payments and expenses.
- They can confidently rely on the law that interim maintenance normally accrues from the date of application.
For counsel:
- Ensure affidavits of assets and liabilities are detailed and consistent with lifestyle evidence.
- When drafting Consent Terms, make the “without prejudice” nature and the interim character explicit.
- Seek clarity in the operative portions—especially when amounts are per person vs. for all dependents collectively.

9. Conclusion

Manisha Amit Khajanchi v. Amit Kanakraj Khajanchi is an important contribution to Indian family law jurisprudence on interim maintenance. It consolidates and applies three key principles:

Interpretive clarity in maintenance orders: Ambiguous terms like “each” must be construed in light of the Court’s findings on adequacy and the dependents’ needs. Where there is doubt, a beneficial construction favouring the dependent spouse and children is appropriate.
Commencement from the date of application: The High Court faithfully applies Supreme Court precedent (Rajnesh v. Neha; Parvin Kumar Jain v. Anju Jain) to hold that maintenance under Section 24 HMA should ordinarily begin from the date of application. The Family Court’s departure, without reasons, warranted correction in writ jurisdiction.
Adjustment for interim consent payments: While enforcing the date-of-application rule, the Court pragmatically directs that interim amounts already paid under Consent Terms must be adjusted against arrears, thereby balancing the rights of the recipient with fairness to the payer.

Overall, the judgment strengthens the procedural and substantive protection available to financially weaker spouses and children in matrimonial proceedings, guides lower courts on drafting and implementing interim maintenance orders, and offers clear doctrinal support for treating interim consent payments as credits, not as a bar, against statutory entitlements. It is likely to be frequently cited in future maintenance disputes, particularly in cases involving ambiguous operative orders and disputes about the date from which maintenance is payable.