Lumpsum receipts are adjustable against interim maintenance effective from the date of application filing, not separation.

The parties were married on November 13, 2013, and have two children. Due to matrimonial discord, they separated in March 2019

The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act in 2020, where it was revealed she had received approximately ₹20,00,000/- as sale consideration from a property purchased by the petitioner-husband in her name

In the PWDV proceedings, the Trial Court and Appellate Court directed that this amount be adjusted against interim maintenance

Parallely, the respondent-wife filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in October 2020

On May 31, 2023, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month but failed to account for the ₹20,00,000/- already in the wife’s possession

The husband’s review application was dismissed by the Family Court on August 2, 2024, on the grounds that the PWDV matter was already dealing with the adjustment issue

1. Whether the Family Court was required to adjust the ₹20,00,000/- received by the wife against the interim maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the adjustment of the lump sum amount should be calculated from the date of separation or the date of filing the maintenance application

3. Whether the maintenance awarded in parallel proceedings under the PWDV Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C. must be set off against each other

The Court applied the principles governing interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that maintenance is generally granted from the date of the application

It further relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Rajnesh v. Neha, which mandates that where maintenance is granted under multiple statutes, the court must ensure adjustment or set-off of the amounts to avoid double payment

The Court also held that at the interim stage, only a prima facie case is to be examined, and disputed facts such as allegations of infidelity are matters for trial

The Court observed that the quantum of ₹25,000/- per month was reasonable given the petitioner’s net monthly salary of approximately ₹89,606/-

However, it found that the Family Court erred in failing to consider the ₹20,00,000/- received by the wife from the property sale

While the lower courts in the PWDV proceedings adjusted this amount from the date of separation (April 2019), this Court corrected that approach, ruling that adjustments must align with the date of filing the application (October 2020) to maintain legal consistency

The Court reasoned that failing to adjust this significant sum would lead to an inequitable burden on the husband and ignore the financial resources already available to the wife for the upkeep of herself and the child

To ensure uniformity between the parallel PWDV and Cr.P.C. proceedings, the Court determined that a specific exhaustion date for the lump sum must be set

Consequently, the petitioner is not required to make fresh monthly payments until the lump sum is exhausted, which the Court calculated to be June 24, 2027

From June 24, 2027, onwards, the petitioner must pay ₹25,000/- per month

The Court further directed that any maintenance paid in the PWDV proceedings must be set off against the Cr.P.C. proceedings to prevent overlapping payments

The petition was disposed of accordingly