Interim maintenance for a minor child cannot be reduced without cogent reasons or material change in circumstances.

The petitioner-wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), registered as Misc. Case No. 22 of 2022 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kharagpur.

During the pendency of the proceedings, she sought interim maintenance for herself and the parties’ minor daughter under Section 23(2) of the DV Act.

By order dated 29 October 2022, the learned Magistrate awarded Rs. 7,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 9,000 per month to the minor daughter, payable from the date of filing of the Miscellaneous Case.

The Magistrate considered the husband’s financial capacity, the parties’ social status, rising living costs, and material indicating that the husband had previously earned 5,000 Dirhams per month while employed overseas.

The husband challenged the quantum of interim maintenance under Section 29 of the DV Act.

By judgment dated 2 January 2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal and reduced the daughter’s interim maintenance from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month, thereby reducing the total monthly maintenance from Rs. 16,000 to Rs. 15,000.

The wife challenged that reduction before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contending that the appellate court had reduced the amount without adequate reasons and despite the husband’s failure to disclose his actual income.

Whether the learned Sessions Judge erred in reducing the minor daughter’s interim maintenance from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month without foundational evidence, cogent reasons, or proof of any material change in circumstances?

Whether the appellate judgment suffered from patent non-application of mind and warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction?

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned appellate order.

The claim for interim maintenance was governed by Sections 12 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under which interim monetary relief may be granted to an aggrieved woman and her child during the pendency of proceedings.

The husband’s appeal arose under Section 29 of the DV Act.

Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court reiterated that maintenance proceedings have a social-welfare purpose and that parties must make full and frank disclosure of their income and assets.

It further applied the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that facts especially within a party’s knowledge—such as his employment and actual earnings—must be disclosed by that party; deliberate concealment cannot operate to reduce a dependent spouse’s or child’s maintenance.

A judicial order affecting maintenance must be reasoned and based on relevant material.

The appellate court itself found that the husband had failed to disclose his occupation, had not produced salary slips supporting his alleged income of Rs. 15,000 per month, and had suppressed his true financial position.

Having reached that conclusion, the appellate court nevertheless reduced the minor daughter’s maintenance by Rs. 1,000 without identifying any change in circumstances, evidentiary basis, or intelligible reason for the reduction.

The High Court held that the reduction was internally inconsistent with the finding of income concealment and improperly benefited the husband from his own non-disclosure.

In light of the husband’s demonstrated past earnings, his ability to earn, and the welfare-oriented purpose of maintenance proceedings, the trial court’s assessment could not have been disturbed arbitrarily.

The absence of reasons therefore constituted non-application of mind and a legal infirmity warranting revisional interference.

It held that the appellate court had unlawfully and without sufficient reasoning reduced the minor daughter’s interim maintenance from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month.

The revisional application was allowed, the judgment and order dated 2 January 2024 in Criminal Appeal Case No. 51 of 2022 was set aside, and the Magistrate’s order dated 29 October 2022 awarding Rs. 7,000 per month to the wife and Rs. 9,000 per month to the daughter was fully restored.

There was no order as to costs.

The trial court was directed to expedite the hearing and final disposal of the main maintenance proceeding, preferably within six months after recording the parties’ oral and documentary evidence.