A wife’s alleged voluntary departure cannot alone defeat interim maintenance absent evidence.

The wife sought maintenance in Crl. Misc. 482 of 2025 and separately applied for interim maintenance.

The Family Court rejected the interim application, finding that she had voluntarily left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason

In revision, she argued that she had left because of cruelty, had no independent income, and that her husband—whose marriage to her was undisputed—had sufficient means to maintain her.

The husband opposed the revision, including on the ground that a separate domestic-violence proceeding had resulted in an order for maintenance of Rs. 4,000 per month.

Whether the Family Court was justified in refusing interim maintenance on the basis that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, without evidence establishing that finding.

Whether interim maintenance could be granted where the wife had also obtained an order for maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides for maintenance, subject to the statutory conditions and disqualifications, including a wife living separately without sufficient reason.

Relying on Sunita Kachwaha v. Anil Kachwaha, the Court stated that maintenance proceedings are summary in nature and need not determine the minutiae of matrimonial disputes; the wife must show inability to maintain herself, the husband’s sufficient means, and neglect or refusal to maintain her.

Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 permits monetary relief, including maintenance, in addition to an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court found that the Family Court had concluded, from the parties’ pleadings alone and without evidence, that the wife had left voluntarily.

The marriage was admitted, there was no prima facie evidence that the wife earned income, and the husband had not properly disputed her assertion that he earned Rs. 80,000 per month, although the main maintenance proceeding remained pending for evidence.

Applying the summary nature of maintenance proceedings, the Court held that the wife’s entitlement should not have been rejected on the basis of an unsupported finding about why she left.

The existing domestic-violence maintenance order did not bar further relief; instead, its Rs. 4,000 monthly amount was to be included in the total interim award to prevent separate duplicate payment.

It directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 8,000 per month from September 2025 until disposal of the main proceeding, with arrears payable in ten equal instalments in addition to current monthly payments.

The Rs. 8,000 award includes the Rs. 4,000 monthly amount already ordered in the domestic-violence case, which is not payable separately.