Writ courts will not disturb interim maintenance orders absent arbitrariness or caprice.

The petitioner-husband and Respondent No. 1-wife were parties to proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending before the JMFC.

On the wife’s application under Section 23, the JMFC awarded her interim monetary compensation of ₹10,000 per month, although she had sought ₹50,000

The Sessions Court dismissed the husband’s appeal under Section 29, noting, among other matters, the parties’ income and the husband’s bank statements

The husband challenged both orders in the High Court, contending that the wife had sufficient income and that the award was based on an inadequate assessment of the parties’ financial circumstances

1. Whether the JMFC’s interim award of ₹10,000 per month under Section 23 was arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise legally unsustainable

2. Whether the Sessions Court’s dismissal of the husband’s appeal disclosed grounds for interference in the High Court’s writ jurisdiction

Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 empowers the Magistrate to grant interim orders, including interim monetary relief; the exercise of that discretion is reviewable for arbitrariness or caprice

Section 29 provides for an appeal from an order under the Act

In writ jurisdiction, the High Court does not re-evaluate disputed questions of fact and confines review to whether the impugned orders accord with law and reflect application of mind and reasoned decision-making

Relying on Shalu Ojha v. Prashant Ojha, (2015) 2 SCC 99, the Sessions Court noted that interim maintenance is intended to meet the aggrieved party’s immediate financial needs and prevent undue hardship

The JMFC considered the wife’s prima facie case of domestic violence and the parties’ relative living standards, social and economic backgrounds, and educational circumstances before awarding an amount lower than that sought

The High Court found no basis to treat that discretionary interim award as arbitrary or capricious.

It also found that the Sessions Court had considered the parties’ annual incomes and the husband’s bank statements, while leaving disputed questions about their income and expenditure for determination at trial

Those factual disputes were not for the High Court to resolve in writ proceedings

It dismissed the writ petition and discharged the Rule, clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the pending domestic-violence proceedings; the accompanying interim application was disposed of as no longer surviving