Interim maintenance under DV Act, 144 BNSS is discretionary and tentative: Raj HC

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the grant of interim maintenance under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is discretionary in nature and intended to operate as a provisional arrangement during the pendency of proceedings. The court held that at the interim stage, it is neither expected nor permissible for courts to undertake a detailed inquiry into disputed questions of fact or finally determine entitlement or quantum, which are matters reserved for adjudication after evidence is led.

The court further held that an order granting interim maintenance does not amount to a final determination of rights, does not crystallise arrears, and does not create any vested entitlement in favour of either party. The amount awarded at the interim stage is only a stop-gap arrangement to prevent immediate hardship and financial deprivation, and interference in revisional jurisdiction is warranted only where the discretion exercised by the courts below is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by a palpable error of law.

These principles were laid down by Justice Farjand Ali while dismissing two connected criminal revision petitions arising out of an order granting interim maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month to the wife.

The husband had approached the High Court assailing the judgment dated May 6, 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan, which had dismissed his appeal and affirmed the order dated August 31, 2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur Metropolitan, granting interim maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month in favour of the wife from the date of application, that is, February 15, 2022.

The wife, on the other hand, filed a separate revision petition challenging the same appellate judgment insofar as it dismissed her appeal seeking enhancement of interim maintenance, contending that the amount awarded was inadequate considering the means and earning capacity of the husband.

The High Court recorded that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on May 11, 2011 and one daughter was born out of the wedlock. Due to matrimonial discord, the parties started living separately in the year 2021, whereafter the wife came to reside at Jodhpur. The wife instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with an application under Section 23 seeking interim maintenance on February 15, 2022, and both parties filed affidavits of income, assets and liabilities as directed by the trial court.

After considering the pleadings and material placed on record, the Magistrate partly allowed the application and granted interim maintenance of Rs.40,000 per month. Appeals preferred by both parties were dismissed by the appellate court by a common order, affirming the grant of interim maintenance.

The High Court noted the rival submissions of the parties regarding entitlement, income, earning capacity, custody of the minor child, and allegations of cruelty, but held that all such issues require evidence and detailed adjudication and cannot be conclusively decided at the interim stage. The court recorded that the trial court had consciously exercised its discretion with the clear understanding that the grant of interim maintenance was purely interim, tentative and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party at the final stage.

The court further held that revisional jurisdiction is even more circumscribed than appellate jurisdiction, and unless the discretion exercised by the courts below suffers from a glaring legal infirmity or results in manifest injustice, interference is not warranted. Finding no perversity, illegality or patent infirmity in the concurrent orders, the High Court declined to interfere either at the instance of the husband seeking reduction or at the instance of the wife seeking enhancement.

Accordingly, both revision petitions were dismissed. The High Court, however, directed the trial court to make all endeavours to conclude and finally dispose of the main application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act expeditiously, preferably within six months. The court clarified that all observations made in the order were confined to the adjudication of the revision petitions and would not prejudice the rights of either party at the stage of final adjudication.

Case Title
Divik Ostwal vs Ambika Jain
Connected with
Ambika Jain vs Divik Ostwal & Others

Case Numbers
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 684/2025
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 845/2025

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Farjand Ali

Date of Judgment
February 3, 2026

Advocates
For the husband: Mr. Surendra Surana
For the wife: Mr. Ramit Mehta, Mr. Tarun Dudia