Interim Maintenance Prevents Hardship, Doesn't Decide Entitlement: Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Enhance ₹40K Interim Maintenance
While rejecting the revision petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance, Rajasthan High Court held that such relief was discretionary and temporary, to prevent destitution of the aggrieved during the proceedings, which was granted by the court without undertaking a detailed adjudication. The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that grant of interim maintenance was...
While rejecting the revision petition filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the interim maintenance, Rajasthan High Court held that such relief was discretionary and temporary, to prevent destitution of the aggrieved during the proceedings, which was granted by the court without undertaking a detailed adjudication.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that grant of interim maintenance was not final or conclusive determination either of the wife's entitlement or the quantum of the same. It was observed that such maintenance did not amount to determination of arrears or conferring any share in the husband's income.
“The very nature of interim maintenance presupposes that the Court is not expected to undertake a detailed roving inquiry or a meticulous adjudication on disputed questions of fact, which are otherwise within the exclusive domain of the final adjudication after evidence is led by the parties.”
The Court was hearing revision petitions filed by both the husband and wife against the order of the trial court that ordered Rs. 40,000 interim maintenance to the wife, on a monthly basis, in relation to a case of domestic violence. While the husband challenged the very grant of maintenance, the wife challenged the quantum of the same alleging substantial monthly income of husband.
After hearing the contentions, the Court that the power to grant interim maintenance under either Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 or the Section 144 of BNS, 2023, was discretionary, provisional and purely ad-hoc, to operate only during the proceedings.
The Court held that purpose of such maintenance was limited to prevent any financial hardship to the aggrieved spouse during the proceedings, without crystallizing any vested right in favour of either party.
It was observed that at this stage, the court did not decide what the wife actually deserved, or whether the maintenance was deserved at all or its quantum.
“The quantum fixed at the interim stage is necessarily approximate, based on a broad and prima facie assessment of the status of the parties, the apparent earning capacity of the husband, the needs of the wife, and other relevant circumstances, including the fact that the custody of the minor child in the present case is with the husband.”
In this light the Court also stated that revisional jurisdiction of the court was limited. It did not act as court of first appeal to reassess tentative conclusions reached by courts at the interim stage unless the discretion suffered from glaring legal infirmity or was manifestly unjust.
Accordingly, both the petitions were rejected.
Title: Divik Ostwal v Ambika Jain and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 52