Maintenance and adjustment of prior receipts must commence from the date of application, not separation.

The parties married in 2013 and have two sons. They separated in March 2019, with the elder son residing with the Petitioner-husband and the younger son with the Respondent-wife

On 20.10.2020, the Respondent filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act alleging physical, mental, and economic abuse

In 2018, a property was purchased in the Respondent’s name using the Petitioner’s funds and a bank loan; it was sold in 2019 for ₹40,00,000. After loan repayment, the Respondent retained ₹20,00,000

The Trial Court (28.02.2023) awarded interim maintenance of ₹15,000 (wife) and ₹10,000 (child), adjusting the ₹20,00,000 against the period from separation (April 2019) to the order date

The Appellate Court modified this, directing that the ₹20,00,000 be adjusted at ₹25,000 per month from April 2019 until December 2025, with maintenance for the wife becoming payable only from 01.01.2026

1. Whether the Respondent-wife is entitled to interim maintenance despite allegations of cruelty and an illicit relationship

2. Whether the Petitioner’s voluntary financial liabilities (EMIs, insurance) can be deducted from his income for maintenance calculation

3. Whether the adjustment of the ₹20,00,000 received by the Respondent should be computed from the date of separation or the date of the application

The court applied Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 regarding the right of an "aggrieved person" to maintenance

It relied on Rajnesh v. Neha (2021), which established that maintenance must ordinarily be awarded from the date of the application

The court applied the "apportionment of income" principle from Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra (2004) to determine quantum

Regarding deductions, it followed Subhash v. Mamta (2025), holding that voluntary expenses like loan EMIs and insurance premiums cannot override the statutory duty to maintain dependents

It further cited Shailja v. Khobbanna (2018) to distinguish between a spouse's "capability to earn" and "actual earning"

The Court held that the Respondent prima facie qualified as an "aggrieved person" as her allegations of dowry harassment and physical assault fell within the scope of "domestic violence" under Section 3 of the PWDV Act

Allegations regarding an illicit relationship were deemed matters of trial and could not be used to deny interim relief at this stage

Regarding the Petitioner’s income (₹80,000/month), the Court rejected his plea to deduct home loan EMIs and LIC premiums, characterizing them as voluntary financial arrangements that do not dilute the paramount obligation to maintain the family

The Court found the total quantum of ₹25,000 reasonable based on the Annurita Vohra formula

Crucially, the Court identified a legal error in the lower courts' adjustment of the ₹20,00,000 sale proceeds from the date of separation (April 2019). Since Rajnesh v. Neha mandates that maintenance (and thus any adjustment against it) must run from the date of the application, the adjustment was recalculated to begin from 20.10.2020

Consequently, the said amount stands adjusted for the period from 20.10.2020 until 20.06.2027

The Petitioner is directed to pay the consolidated interim maintenance of ₹25,000 per month for the Respondent and the minor son effective from 21.06.2027 onwards

The petition was disposed of with no expression on the merits of the pending trial