Court cannot meticulously examine evidence or minor inconsistencies at the stage of granting interim relief under DV Act.

The respondent (aggrieved person) married petitioner No. 1 in 2020 and alleged that upon joining her matrimonial home in 2021, she was subjected to domestic violence, mental agony, and molestation by her father-in-law (petitioner No. 2).

Initially, the Trial Magistrate granted an ex-parte interim order for monetary compensation and residence.

However, on 11.11.2023, the Trial Magistrate dismissed her application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, citing inconsistencies in her testimony and the non-filing of an affidavit of assets.

The respondent appealed this dismissal. The Appellate Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Ganderbal) set aside the Trial Magistrate's order on 12.11.2025, awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000 and a rent allowance of Rs. 2,500.

The petitioners challenged this appellate order before the High Court.

1. Whether the Trial Magistrate exceeded its jurisdiction by performing a meticulous analysis of evidence at the stage of deciding an interim application under Section 23 of the DV Act.

2. Whether the non-filing of an affidavit of assets and liabilities extinguishes the right to claim maintenance under the DV Act.

3. Whether a subsequent claim of divorce by the husband can be adjudicated during the challenge to an interim maintenance order.

Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, which empowers the Magistrate to grant interim and ex-parte orders.

The standard of proof for interim relief is only a prima facie satisfaction regarding the existence of a domestic relationship and the likelihood of domestic violence.

Procedural requirements, such as the filing of an affidavit of assets (as per the guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha), are essential but their absence does not automatically extinguish a statutory right to maintenance.

The High Court found that the Trial Magistrate erred by conducting a "minute" and "meticulous" analysis of the aggrieved person's statement, focusing on minor inconsistencies in dates to deny interim relief.

The Court reasoned that such an evidentiary examination is premature at the Section 23 stage, where the Court need only be satisfied on a prima facie basis.

Regarding the procedural lapse claimed by the Trial Magistrate, the High Court noted that the Appellate Court found the requisite affidavit was already on record, and regardless, a procedural delay does not invalidate the right to protection.

The Court refused to entertain the petitioner’s claim of a 2023 divorce deed, noting that its validity and its subsequent effect on the DV Act proceedings are matters of trial for the Magistrate to decide during final disposal.

Court affirmed the award of Rs. 5,000 per month as interim monetary assistance and Rs. 2,500 as rent/residential assistance to the respondent.

Trial Courts should avoid detailed appreciation of evidence while deciding interim maintenance applications under the DV Act.

The petition was dismissed as being without merit.