What are standard arguments one can make so that interim maintenance can be started from order date, and not from application date. If the judge seat is vacant for a long time, a husband is no way responsible for the delay. Can this argument be used as a valid argument for interim maintenance staring at order date? What about making a point that a wife is responsible for delay, because she deliberately slipped sessions. Please share your thoughts.
I have seen several judgements where interim starts from order date, but nowhere the reason is shown. Child visitation starts from order date without providing complementary access, but interim starts from application date is unreasonable to me.