Karnataka HC Sets Aside Wife’s ₹20,000 Monthly Interim Relief, Citing Her ₹96,000 Salary, HRA And No Prima Facie Proof Of Domestic Violence

The wife filed proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22.

Her interim application under Sections 20 and 23(2) sought monetary relief, alleging that she had been forced to leave the shared household and deprived of her belongings.

The trial court refused interim monetary relief, noting that she earned approximately ₹96,000 per month and that her stated monthly expenses were approximately ₹48,500.

On appeal, the Sessions Court directed the husband to pay ₹20,000 per month towards alternate accommodation and incidental expenses.

The husband challenged that order in revision.

Section 20 of the DV Act permits monetary relief for expenses incurred and losses suffered as a result of domestic violence, including loss of earnings, medical expenses, damage to or removal of property, and maintenance; under Section 23(2), interim relief may be granted where the application prima facie discloses domestic violence or its likelihood.

Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, requires assessment of relevant circumstances—including the parties’ status, needs, education, income and standard of living—when determining maintenance.

Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori, (2014) 10 SCC 736, recognizes that Section 20 monetary relief may compensate losses caused by domestic violence and is distinct from maintenance.

Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not ordinarily permit reappreciation of the merits; interference is warranted where the lower court’s decision is perverse, grossly erroneous or unreasonable, based on irrelevant or no material, or reflects arbitrary exercise of discretion.

The High Court found that the wife’s salary was ₹96,000 per month, her stated expenses were approximately ₹48,500, and she received HRA of ₹25,879 as of January 2024; it also noted that the husband earned ₹1,48,000 and had monthly expenses exceeding ₹1,00,000, as well as family responsibilities.

The court considered that the wife’s allegations of domestic violence and loss of belongings were denied, remained to be tried, and had not been prima facie established against the husband; the appellate court had also not accounted for her HRA.

It therefore held that the appellate court’s interim award was unsupported by the required prima facie basis and warranted revisional interference.

allowed the revision petition, and set aside the appellate court’s judgment awarding ₹20,000 per month in interim monetary relief.