Interim maintenance exists because destitution cannot wait for a final adjudication. Recognising this, the second proviso to Section 144(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — carrying forward the mandate first inserted into Section 125 CrPC — directs that an application for interim monthly allowance shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of service of notice on the respondent. In Delhi's family courts, where maintenance dockets are heavy, the provision is less a description of reality than a tool: parties who understand the timeline, the affidavit regime that feeds it, and the remedies for drift can materially shorten the distance between filing and the first payment.
Why the legislature set a clock
A maintenance claim decided after years vindicates a right while defeating its purpose. Parliament's answer, first grafted onto Section 125 CrPC and now housed in the second proviso to Section 144(2) BNSS, is a disposal norm for the interim stage: sixty days from service. The interim order is meant to be provisional and quick precisely because it can later be adjusted — upward or downward — in the final order, and because the affidavit-based procedure gives the court enough material for a fair provisional figure without a trial.
The machinery that makes sixty days feasible
The affidavit-of-assets regime is the engine of speed. A claimant who files a complete affidavit and immediately seeks directions for the respondent's affidavit converts the case from a pleading battle into a document comparison — which is a sixty-day task.
When the timeline slips: the litigant's options
| Situation | Practical response |
|---|---|
| Respondent evades service | Seek substituted and electronic service promptly; evasion documented on record supports proceeding ex parte on the interim application. |
| Respondent withholds his affidavit of assets | Press for a peremptory direction; persistent default can justify striking the defence on the interim application and drawing adverse inferences on income. |
| Repeated adjournments beyond the norm | Invoke the sixty-day proviso on record and seek a short, fixed schedule; costs for avoidable adjournments can be sought. |
| Application pending long past the benchmark | A petition to the High Court under its supervisory jurisdiction seeking a time-bound disposal direction is an accepted remedy for stagnation. |
| Urgent need before any order | Ask for ad interim directions — for example, continuation of household outgoings — pending the interim adjudication itself. |
The respondent's perspective
The timeline is not only the claimant's friend. A respondent facing an inflated claim benefits from an early, evidence-anchored interim order rather than months of uncertainty ending in a large arrear liability computed from the application date. Filing a candid affidavit quickly, with salary slips and bank statements, lets him contest quantum on his real numbers instead of the inferences courts draw against non-disclosers — inferences that tend to be generous to the claimant. And because interim orders are adjustable in the final order, the respondent loses little by early disposal and risks much by delay.
The larger point
Maintenance procedure has been progressively re-engineered around disclosure and speed: standardised asset affidavits, service by electronic means, interim awards from the application date, and the sixty-day disposal norm now restated in the BNSS. Litigants who work with that architecture — complete papers, proved service, insistence on the statutory rhythm — generally find that the system, for all its congestion, can be made to move at something close to the pace the statute intends.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the sixty-day period mandatory?
The words "as far as possible" make it directory, not a guillotine — an order passed later is not invalid. But the proviso states the legislative expectation, and courts treat it as the benchmark. It is a legitimate ground for pressing early disposal and for seeking intervention when an interim application languishes.
When does the sixty-day clock start?
From the date of service of notice of the application on the respondent — not from filing. Diligent, well-documented service therefore serves the claimant twice over: it starts the statutory clock and forecloses adjournments premised on want of notice.
What usually delays interim maintenance, and what is the answer?
Delayed or contested service, non-filing of the affidavit of assets and liabilities, and repeated adjournments. The answers are electronic service with proof, insisting on the affidavit timelines, asking the court to strike a persistent defaulter's defence for non-compliance, and seeking ad interim directions in the meanwhile.
From what date is interim maintenance payable?
The settled working rule is that maintenance is ordinarily awarded from the date of the application. Delay in adjudication therefore does not erase the entitlement — it accumulates as arrears — but a lump-sum arrear order is a poor substitute for timely monthly support, which is exactly what the sixty-day proviso addresses.