The Rajasthan High Court refused to enhance an interim maintenance award of ₹40,000 per month and explained that interim maintenance is discretionary, provisional and ad-hoc in nature meant only to prevent financial hardship while matrimonial or domestic violence proceedings are pending, without finally deciding entitlement or the correct amount for maintenance. The decision was delivered by a Bench led by Justice Farjand Ali, which was hearing revision petitions filed by both a husband and a wife challenging a trial court order granting ₹40,000 per month as interim maintenance during proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and related statutory provisions. The husband had challenged the very grant of interim maintenance, while the wife sought enhancement of the monthly amount on the basis of the husband’s income and apparent financial status. After hearing submissions from both sides, the High Court upheld the principle that interim maintenance does not amount to a conclusive determination of the right to maintenance or the precise quantum that may ultimately be payable, and that it does not confer any vested right in favour of either party.
The High Court observed that the nature of interim maintenance is such that it is granted at a preliminary stage on a prima facie assessment of the respective positions of the parties, including the apparent earning capacity of the husband, the needs of the wife and other circumstances relevant to the immediate financial needs of the aggrieved party. The Court noted that an order for interim maintenance is not intended to involve a comprehensive or detailed inquiry into contested questions of fact or legal rights that are ordinarily examined at the final stage of adjudication after evidence has been led. In this light, the Bench held that the jurisdiction exercisable in revision against an interim maintenance order is limited, and that the High Court does not act as a first appellate court to reassess the tentative conclusions reached at the interim stage unless there is a glaring legal infirmity or a manifestly unjust exercise of discretion. The Court emphasised that the power to grant interim maintenance under the relevant statutory provisions is discretionary and provisional, and that the order simply seeks to strike a balance between the need to prevent hardship to the aggrieved spouse and the realities of the ongoing proceedings.
The High Court further explained that interim maintenance awarded during the pendency of matrimonial or domestic violence cases is not equivalent to a final or definitive determination of entitlement, nor does it amount to deciding arrears or conferring any share in the husband’s income permanently. Instead, the order at the interim stage is necessarily approximate, based on broad and prima facie considerations drawn from the pleadings and the circumstances apparent on record. As such, the Court noted that interim maintenance must be understood as a temporary relief to provide sustenance or financial support to the aggrieved party while the main proceedings continue, and its quantum on an interim basis often reflects a pragmatic assessment rather than a conclusive judgment on entitlement.
In refusing both the husband’s challenge to the grant of interim maintenance and the wife’s plea for enhancement of the amount, the High Court underscored that the purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent destitution or hardship to the aggrieved spouse during the pendency of proceedings, and not to conclusively fix what might ultimately be due after detailed adjudication. The Court reiterated that the exercise of discretion in awarding interim relief involves consideration of the immediate needs of the applicant and the ability of the other party to pay, and that such orders are not subject to routine revision unless the discretion is shown to have been exercised in a way that offends legal principles or results in manifest injustice. Therefore, in the absence of any substantial legal infirmity or arbitrariness in the interim maintenance order, both revision petitions were dismissed and the interim maintenance of ₹40,000 per month was left undisturbed.
The judgment highlights the provisional character of interim maintenance in matrimonial and domestic violence proceedings, confirming that such relief serves as a stop-gap measure to address immediate financial hardship rather than a final adjudication on the rights of the parties. It clarifies that a court granting interim maintenance does not undertake the same level of detailed scrutiny that would be involved in a final determination of maintenance, and that the discretionary nature of this relief limits the scope for revisional interference. The decision reinforces that interim maintenance orders are meant to mitigate hardship and preserve the status quo during ongoing proceedings, and that enhancements or revisions of such orders will be warranted only in exceptional cases where discretion is exercised arbitrarily or without regard to guiding legal principles.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.