Isabella Mariam

The Rajasthan High Court Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali dismissed the wife’s revision petition seeking enhancement of interim maintenance, as well as the husband’s challenge to the grant of such maintenance and directed the trial court to conclude the pending domestic violence proceedings expeditiously, preferably within six months. In the dispute between estranged spouses, interim maintenance of ₹40,000 per month had been ordered for the wife during the pendency of the case. The Court noted that interim maintenance is a discretionary, stop-gap arrangement intended to prevent destitution during proceedings and is awarded on a prima facie view without detailed adjudication. It clarified that such relief is neither a final finding on entitlement or quantum, nor a determination of arrears or any share in the husband’s income.

The dispute arose from matrimonial discord between the husband and wife, whose marriage was solemnized on 11.05.2011 according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock, one daughter was born. The parties initially resided together and later shifted to Mumbai. In 2021, they began living separately, and the wife started residing at Jodhpur.

Also Read: Statutory Authorities Can Intervene When Co-Operative Housing Society Delays Membership Decisions; Supreme Court

The wife instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, along with an application under Section 23 seeking interim maintenance on 15.02.2022. Both parties filed replies and affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities before the Trial Court. The Magistrate granted interim maintenance of ₹40,000 per month from the date of application. Both parties preferred separate appeals, which were dismissed, affirming the interim maintenance order.

The husband contended that the wife left the matrimonial home without justifiable cause, that allegations of cruelty and dowry demand were false, and that he was already maintaining the minor daughter residing with him. He also disputed the income attributed to him. The wife asserted that she was subjected to physical, mental, and economic cruelty, had no independent income, suffered from medical ailments, and that the maintenance awarded was inadequate considering the husband’s earning capacity.

The Court observed, “The power to grant interim maintenance is essentially discretionary in nature, vested in the Court to be exercised pendente lite, and such discretion is neither arbitrary nor unfettered.” It recorded that such discretion is to be exercised on the basis of pleadings, affidavits of income, assets, and liabilities, and a prima facie evaluation of material placed on record.

The Court stated, “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.”

It further observed, “The grant of interim maintenance does not amount to a final or conclusive determination either on the entitlement of the wife to maintenance or on the quantum thereof.” The discretion exercised at the interim stage was described as “tentative, provisional and purely ad hoc.”

The Court recorded, “The purpose of interim maintenance is limited and specific: it is to ensure that the aggrieved spouse is not rendered destitute or subjected to undue financial hardship during the pendency of the litigation.” It clarified that such an order does not create a vested right or determine arrears and operates as a stop-gap arrangement till final adjudication.

The Court observed, “Maintenance, particularly interim maintenance, is a measure of social justice, designed to ensure subsistence and dignity, and not to equalize incomes or to punish one party by imposing an onerous financial liability.”

Regarding appellate and revisional interference, the Court stated, “Interference with an order of interim maintenance is justified only where the discretion exercised by the Court below is shown to be manifestly arbitrary, capricious, perverse, or vitiated by a palpable error of law or jurisdiction.” It recorded, “The revisional jurisdiction of this Court is even more circumscribed.”

In the context of the present case, the Court observed, “The rival contentions… are all matters which require evidence and detailed adjudication. These questions cannot be conclusively answered at the stage of interim maintenance.” It further recorded that the grant of ₹40,000 per month was “purely interim, tentative and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of either party at the final stage.”

The Court found, “This Court finds no palpable error, perversity or illegality in the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below so as to warrant interference in revisional jurisdiction.”

Also Read: Charge-Sheet Based On Wrong Charge Bars Later Dilution: Rajasthan High Court Orders Reinstatement Of CRPF Constable In Desertion-Labelled Disciplinary Case

The Court directed, “Consequently, both the revision petitions are devoid of merit and are hereby dismissed. The learned Trial Court is directed to make all endeavours to conclude and finally dispose of the main application under Section 12 of the Act expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law.”

“It is clarified that all observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present revision petitions and shall not prejudice the rights and contentions of either party at the stage of final adjudication before the learned Trial Court.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Surendra Surana

For the Respondents: Mr. Ramit Mehta, Mr. Tarun Dudia

Case Title: Divik Ostwal v. Ambika Jain & Connected Matter

Neutral Citation: 2026: RJ-JD:5657

Case Number: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 684/2025 with S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 845/2025

Bench: Justice Farjand Ali