Revisional courts cannot reappraise concurrent maintenance findings absent jurisdictional error or perversity.

The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife married under Muslim personal law on 29 December 2019, with dower fixed at ₹3,25,000. The respondent alleged desertion and domestic violence and initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), seeking maintenance of ₹15,000 per month; the petitioner’s brother and sister were also impleaded.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hailakandi initially awarded interim maintenance of ₹4,000 per month on 2 July 2022. The Sessions Court upheld that order on 17 May 2023.

Thereafter, upon consideration of the parties’ affidavits of assets and liabilities, the Magistrate enhanced the maintenance to ₹8,000 per month by order dated 21 April 2024.

The petitioner’s appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 16 December 2025.

In revision, the petitioner contended that his salary was ₹36,100 per month, his claimed monthly expenditure exceeded his income, he had remarried, and he was responsible for other dependants.

The respondent submitted that she had no independent income, that the petitioner had additional sources of income, and that substantial arrears remained unpaid.

Whether the Sessions Court erred in upholding the Magistrate’s enhancement of the respondent’s interim maintenance from ₹4,000 to ₹8,000 per month.

Whether the concurrent orders suffered from jurisdictional error, perversity, or any other defect warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The proceedings arose under Section 12 of the DV Act, which empowers the Magistrate to grant relief, including monetary relief and maintenance, to an aggrieved woman, with an appeal ordinarily available under Section 29 of the Act.

The High Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, but reiterated that revision is not equivalent to a second appeal and does not ordinarily permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of concurrent factual findings.

Relying principally on Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court held that maintenance has no rigid formula and must be assessed having regard to the parties’ status, the wife’s reasonable needs, her education and qualifications, her independent income, the standard of living during marriage, the husband’s financial capacity, and litigation expenses.

The object of maintenance is to prevent the dependent spouse from being reduced to destitution or vagrancy, not to punish the other spouse.

The Sessions Court found that the enhanced amount of ₹8,000 per month was less than one-fourth of the petitioner’s income and was therefore not excessive; the High Court held that this conclusion was not perverse.

The enhancement was made after the petitioner was directed to submit an affidavit of assets and liabilities, and the lower court had considered the relevant factors governing interim maintenance.

The High Court found that the petitioner’s claimed expenses did not inspire confidence because his affidavit recorded medical expenses of ₹10,000 per month and loan liabilities of ₹10,432 per month without furnishing supporting particulars.

The petitioner’s remarriage and obligations towards his mother, sister, and brother did not displace the respondent’s entitlement, particularly where the respondent was unemployed and had no independent source of income.

Since the impugned orders disclosed no jurisdictional error or perversity, and the revisional court could not act as a second appellate court, interference was unwarranted.

The revision petition was dismissed.

The petitioner was directed to comply with the impugned judgment and to pay the outstanding arrears of interim maintenance payable in DV Case No. 56/2021.