Revisional courts should not interfere with interim maintenance absent illegality, impropriety, or incorrectness.

The petitioner-husband and respondent-wife married on 9 February 2000 and had two children. The wife alleged physical and mental domestic violence, neglect, suppression of the husband’s prior marriage, and failure to provide financial support. She claimed that she had no independent income, whereas the husband was engaged in the coal business and earned approximately ₹2,00,000 per month.

The husband denied the allegations, asserted that the wife earned rental income, contended that the parties had been living separately since 2014, and claimed that he earned only about ₹15,000 per month as a temporary field manager. Both parties filed affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities.

In proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), the Judicial Magistrate granted interim monetary relief of ₹9,000 per month to the wife and children. On appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act, the Additional Sessions Judge reduced the amount to ₹6,500 per month. During the revision proceedings, the High Court granted interim protection reducing the payable amount to ₹4,000 per month.

Whether the courts below erred in granting interim maintenance despite the husband’s allegations that the wife had independent rental income and that the parties had been living separately since 2014.

Whether the appellate order granting interim maintenance of ₹4,000 per month disclosed any illegality, incorrectness, impropriety, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Whether the interim maintenance awarded to the wife and children was liable to be reduced further pending final adjudication of the DV proceedings.

The Court applied Sections 12 and 29 of the DV Act, governing an application for relief under the Act and an appeal against an order passed by the Magistrate, respectively.

The Court proceeded on the principle that interim maintenance must be determined by considering the parties’ pleadings, financial circumstances, assets and liabilities, income, expenditure, and the needs of the claimant.

It relied on Bharat Hegde v. Saroj Hegde, 2007 SCC OnLine Del 622, for the relevant parameters in determining maintenance.

The Court further applied the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, under which interference is justified only where the impugned order suffers from illegality, incorrectness, impropriety, or a comparable jurisdictional infirmity.

The Magistrate considered the parties’ pleadings, statements of assets and liabilities, and the wife’s expenditure before granting interim maintenance.

The appellate court reassessed the same material, including the wife’s alleged rental income and the husband’s asserted income, and reduced the amount payable.

The High Court held that the husband’s contentions concerning the parties’ separate residence, the wife’s rental income, the children’s age, and the husband’s actual earnings involved disputed questions of fact that could be examined at the final adjudication but did not establish an apparent illegality in the interim order.

Since the appellate order had considered the relevant financial material and the maintenance was only interim, the Court found no sufficient ground to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to reduce the amount below ₹4,000 per month.

The Court also noted that the wife had not challenged the appellate order; therefore, enhancement of the amount was not in issue.

The revision petition was dismissed.

The amount of ₹4,000 per month was left undisturbed pending final disposal of the DV proceedings, without the Court expressing any final view on the merits of the parties’ allegations or financial claims.