Recently, the Rajasthan High Court declined to interfere with concurrent orders granting interim maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month to a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding that no perversity or illegality was made out in the exercise of discretion by the courts below. The Court underscored that interim maintenance is only a temporary measure and that disputed questions of fact cannot be conclusively decided at the interim stage.
Brief Fact:
The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 11 May 2011 in accordance with Hindu rites, and a daughter was born from the wedlock. After initially living together, the couple shifted to Mumbai, but matrimonial discord eventually led to their separation in 2021, following which the wife began residing at Jodhpur. Alleging domestic violence, the wife instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, along with an application under Section 23 seeking interim maintenance.
Upon considering the pleadings and affidavits, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate granted interim maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month from the date of application. Appeals preferred by both parties were dismissed, affirming the grant. Aggrieved, the husband approached the High Court seeking reduction or setting aside of the maintenance, while the wife filed a connected revision seeking enhancement.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent-wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and was therefore disentitled to maintenance. It was contended that allegations of cruelty and dowry demand were false and motivated. The petitioner further submitted that he was already bearing the responsibility of maintaining the minor daughter in his custody and that the interim maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month imposed an undue financial burden. He asserted that the wife had exaggerated his income and financial capacity without supporting material, warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Counsel for the respondent-wife contended that she was subjected to physical, mental, and economic cruelty arising out of unlawful dowry demands and was abandoned without justification. It was submitted that she had no independent source of income and was suffering from serious medical ailments, having undergone multiple surgeries that rendered her incapable of earning.
The respondent further alleged that the petitioner-husband was financially well placed, holding a senior position and earning substantial income, which he had deliberately concealed. On this basis, enhancement of interim maintenance was sought to meet her medical expenses and maintain a standard of living commensurate with that enjoyed during the marriage.
Observations of the Court:
The Court analysed the scope and object of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, observing that it is a discretionary power intended to prevent financial hardship during the pendency of proceedings. Emphasising its tentative nature, the Court noted that interim maintenance “does not determine the final rights or liabilities of the parties.” It further held that at the interim stage, “a detailed inquiry into disputed facts is neither required nor permissible.”
On the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Court reiterated that interference is warranted only where the impugned orders are shown to be “patently illegal, perverse, or arbitrary.” Examining the record, the Court found that the Trial Court had exercised its discretion on the basis of pleadings and affidavits, and that the Appellate Court had rightly found no infirmity. The rival claims regarding cruelty, income, and entitlement, the Court held, require evidence and final adjudication and cannot be conclusively assessed at an interim stage.
The decision of the Court:
The Court held that the concurrent orders granting interim maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month did not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, and accordingly dismissed both the husband’s revision seeking reduction and the wife’s revision seeking enhancement. The Court directed the Trial Court to endeavour to decide the main petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act expeditiously, preferably within six months, clarifying that its observations would not prejudice the parties at the stage of final adjudication.
Case Title: Divik Ostwal S/o Virendra Kumar, Vs. Ambika Jain W/o Divik Ostwal, And Ors.
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 684/2025
Coram: Hon'ble. Justice Farjand Ali
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Surendra Surana
Advocate for the Respondent: Adv. Ramit Mehta, Adv.Tarun Dudia
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
