Maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act must reflect the husband’s income, assets, and wife’s standard of living.

The revisionist-wife and respondent no. 2-husband were married on 2 May 1998.

The wife alleged physical and mental cruelty and stated that she was assaulted and expelled from the matrimonial home on 1 July 2011.

She consequently filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“D.V. Act”).

The Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, awarded her ₹10,000 per month as maintenance, ₹1,500 per month towards rental accommodation, and ₹2,000 as compensation under Section 22 of the D.V. Act.

On the husband’s appeal, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge reduced the maintenance component from ₹10,000 to ₹3,500 per month, while maintaining ₹1,500 per month towards rent, resulting in a total monthly award of ₹5,000.

The wife challenged this reduction, contending that the husband was a government employee earning approximately ₹65,000 per month and also possessed agricultural land generating additional income.

The husband opposed the revision and argued that his agricultural income had not been reliably established.

Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reducing the maintenance awarded under Section 12 of the D.V. Act from ₹10,000 to ₹3,500 per month without adequately considering the husband’s income, financial capacity, the parties’ standard of living, and the wife’s reasonable needs?

Whether directions should be issued for payment of arrears of maintenance, after accounting for amounts already paid or deposited?

The Court applied Sections 12 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under which an aggrieved woman may seek monetary relief, including maintenance, and compensation for domestic violence.

It reiterated that a wife is entitled to live with dignity and in accordance with the status and standard of living of her husband.

In determining maintenance, the Court must consider the respondent’s income and financial capacity, the aggrieved person’s reasonable needs, the standard of living enjoyed during the matrimonial relationship, and the other relevant circumstances established on the record.

Amounts already paid towards maintenance or rental accommodation must be adjusted to prevent duplication.

The High Court found that the husband’s government employment and approximate monthly income of ₹65,000 were undisputed, and that agricultural land stood attributed to him on the record.

Applying the requirement that maintenance must enable the wife to live with dignity and reflect the husband’s financial capacity and the parties’ standard of living, the Court held that the Appellate Court had reduced the maintenance without adequately considering the relevant financial circumstances and the wife’s reasonable requirements.

The Court therefore restored the trial court’s maintenance award.

Since no stay had operated against the maintenance orders during the revision, it directed payment of 20% of the total arrears within three months, subject to adjustment of payments already made or deposited.

The High Court set aside the Appellate Court’s order to the extent that it reduced maintenance from ₹10,000 to ₹3,500 per month and restored the trial court’s award of ₹10,000 per month as maintenance plus ₹1,500 per month towards rental accommodation.

These amounts were made payable from 22 September 2026, by the seventh day of each English calendar month.

The husband was further directed to deposit 20% of the outstanding arrears, after adjusting sums already paid or deposited, within three months before the competent court for payment to the wife.