Reserved On: 27.06.2025 vs Subhash Chand

Madhu Bala ...Petitioner

Versus Subhash Chand ...Respondent

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Kunal Thakur, Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Aditya Thakur, Advocate. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant petition, the petitioner has assailed

order dated 14.05.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Sirmaur at Nahan in Criminal Appeal No.117/2023, whereby order

dated 06.07.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Rajgarh in Criminal Case No.51/4 of 2023 has been

modified.

2. The petitioner has filed petition under Section 12 of

the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short,

"the DV Act") against the respondent which is pending on the files

of before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajgarh as

Criminal Case No.51/4 of 2023.

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 2 3. The petitioner had also prayed for interim reliefs

under Section 23 of the Act.

.

4. On the application for interim relief, learned trial Court

held the petitioner entitled to interim maintenance at the rate of

Rs.60,000/- per month.

5. Learned appellate Court vide impugned order has

reduced the maintenance amount to Rs.25,000/- per month,

hence this petition.

6. to I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

have also perused the record carefully.

7. The learned trial Court had passed the order for

interim maintenance after holding that the monthly income of

respondent was Rs.3,18,792/-. This finding of fact has not been

disturbed even by learned appellate Court. It appears that during

appellate proceedings respondent did not even raise any question

about his income.

8. Learned appellate Court has reduced the

maintenance awarded by learned trial Court on the premise that

the purpose of grant of interim relief is to save the aggrieved

person from sufferance during litigation and to enable such

person to make both ends meet as well as fulfill basic and

genuine requirements. Learned appellate Court then proceeded

to assess the likely expenses required by the petitioner. The fact

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 3

that has weighed with learned appellate Court is that the

petitioner was residing at Rajgarh with her parents, which is a

.

small town. The lifestyle at Rajgarh was not like the one in

metropolitan cities like Delhi. Learned appellate Court then

assumed that the amount of Rs.30,000/- claimed by the petitioner

for food and clothing etc. is highly excessive and it should not be

more than 15,000/- per month. Similarly, under all other heads,

been emphasized r that to reduction has been made by the learned appellate Court. It has

the purpose of passing interim

maintenance order was only to protect the rights of wife during

the petition.

9. In Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel 2024

SCC Online SC 1724 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:

"26. Furthermore, the financial capacity of the

husband is a critical factor in determining permanent alimony. The Court shall examine

the husband's actual income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and any dependents he is legally obligated to support. His liabilities and financial commitments are also to be considered to ensure a balanced and fair maintenance award. The court must consider the husband's standard of living and the impact of inflation and high living costs. Even if the husband claims to have no source of income, his ability to earn, given his

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 4

education and qualifications, is to be taken into account. The courts shall ensure that the relief granted is fair, reasonable, and

.

consistent with the standard of living to which

the aggrieved party was accustomed. The court's approach should be to balance all

relevant factors to avoid maintenance amounts that are either excessively high or unduly low, ensuring that the dependent

spouse can live with reasonable comfort post- separation."

10. In Dr. Rajiv Varghese Vs. Rose Chakkrammankkil

Franci, 2024 SCC online SC 3367, it has been held as under:

"10. The High Court held that the respondent, being a Cardiologist, earned a monthly income of

Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Twenty Five Thousand only) is established and that he and his mother received a rent of Rs.2,73,301/- (Rupees

Two Lakh Seventy Three Thousand and Three

Hundred One only) per month, of which he received only half amount. Based on these two considerations, the High Court concluded that the

appellant wife established the respondent's income to at least Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty Thousand only) per month. The High Court took note of the fact that the appellant sacrificed her employment after the marriage and determined that the reasonable amount of interim maintenance to be one third of the respondent's income which was Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per month.

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 5 11. We find that the High Court has erred in reducing the quantum of maintenance to Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty Thousand only) per

.

month. The High Court has considered only two

sources of income for the respondent. Firstly, the sum of Rs.1,25,000/-.

(Rupees One Lakh and Twenty-Five Thousand only) that he earns from working as a Cardiologist at the Hospital. Secondly, the rent amount he and

his mother receive from a property, of which the High Court has stated that he receives half the amount only. However, the High Court has not dealt

with the findings of the Family Court wherein the

respondent is said to own a number of worthful properties and the fact that he is the only legal heir of his father. The Family Court found that the

respondent is accruing all the incomes from the properties owned by his mother. The High Court has not dealt with the aspect of the number of

properties owned by the respondent and looked at

the rental income from one property. The Family Court also noted that the respondent was found to be in possession of a school and could not

substantiate his claim that the school was running in losses. Therefore, the High Court has overlooked certain aspects relating to the income of the respondent which were looked at by the Family Court. Further, it is also on record that the appellant is not working as she sacrificed her employment after the marriage. The appellant was accustomed to a certain standard of living in her matrimonial home and therefore, during the pendency of the divorce petition, is also entitled to enjoy the same

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 6

amenities of life as she would have been entitled to in her matrimonial home."

11. Similarly, in Rakhi Sadhukhan Vs. Raja

.

Sadhukhan, reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1259, it has been

observed as under:

"5.The appellant-wife contends that the amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, which the High Court made

final, was originally awarded as interim maintenance. She submits that the respondent- husband has a monthly income of approximately Rs. 4,00,000/- and the quantum of alimony awarded

is not commensurate with the standard of living

maintained by the parties during the marriage.

6. In response, the respondent-husband submits

that his current net monthly income is Rs. 1,64,039/- earned from his employment at the Institute of Hotel Management, Taratala, Kolkata.

He has placed on record salary slips, bank statements, and income tax returns for the year

2023-2024. It is further stated that he was earlier employed with the Taj Hotel, drawing a gross

annual salary of Rs. 21,92,525/-. He also submits that his monthly household expenses total Rs. 1,72,088/-, and that he has remarried, has a dependent family, and aged parents. The respondent- husband contends that their son, now 26 years of age, is no longer financially dependent.

7. Having considered the submissions and materials on record, we are of the view that the quantum of permanent alimony fixed by the High

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 7

Court requires revision. The respondent-husband's income, financial disclosures, and past earnings establish that he is in a position to pay a higher

.

amount. The appellant-wife, who has remained

unmarried and is living independently, is entitled to a level of maintenance that is reflective of the

standard of living she enjoyed during the marriage and which reasonably secures her future. Furthermore, the inflationary cost of living and her

continued reliance on maintenance as the sole means of financial support necessitate a r reassessment of the amount.

8. In our considered opinion, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-

per month would be just, fair and reasonable to ensure financial stability for the appellant-wife. This amount shall be subject to an enhancement of 5%

every two years. As regards the son, now aged 26, we are not inclined to direct any further mandatory financial support. However, it is open to the

respondent-husband to voluntarily assist him with

educational or other reasonable expenses. We clarify that the son's right to inheritance remains unaffected, and any claim to ancestral or other

property may be pursued in accordance with law

12. The approach adopted by learned appellate Court in

reducing the interim maintenance awarded by learned trial court,

only on the basis that the purpose of such grant is mere

rehabilitation of spouse does not appear to be having any cogent

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 8

basis. In the case in hand there was no dispute as to the income

of the husband.

.

13. It cannot be ignored that normally it takes quite a

long time for final adjudication of matrimonial dispute and thus,

there cannot be any radical difference in approach while granting

interim maintenance than while awarding permanent alimony. In

case the party is held entitled to interim relief, it has to be allowed

keeping in view the realistic parameters. Merely because the

petitioner is a resident of smaller town does not make her

different than the person residing in a metropolitan city. One of the

relevant factors for determining compensation is the income of

the respondent. No doubt his liabilities, if any, also cannot be

ignored. In the instant case, the admitted income of respondent is

Rs.3,18,792/- per month. There is nothing substantive on record

to suggest that the respondent is under obligation to discharge

liability to such an extent that he cannot maintain his wife in a

decent manner.

14. When the husband is earning more than

Rs.3,00,000/- per month, the desire and choice of wife cannot be

restricted for the only reason that she is residing in a smaller

place. The wife has every right to maintain the same standard,

which she was having in the house of her husband. Thus, the

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 9

reduction of maintenance amount from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.25,000/-

per month by learned appellate Court is unjustified

.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent raised an

argument that the petitioner had suppressed material facts. She

was working and earning Rs.30,000/- per month and this fact was

not disclosed by her while claiming the maintenance. He urged

that the respondent has already filed an application under section

25(2) of DV Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Rajgarh for revocation of order of maintenance on the ground that

the petitioner is earning. He drew the attention of this Court to the

additional documents filed by him to support his contention.

16. The argument raised on behalf of the respondent

cannot be allowed any weightage in the instant proceedings,

wherein the order of learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan

is under challenge. Evidently, the fact that the petitioner was

allegedly employed and was earning had not been brought to the

notice of learned appellate Court or learned Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Rajgarh. Thus, this court cannot adjudicate on an

issue which was not raised before the Court, whose order has

been assailed.

17. Even otherwise, the documents placed on record by

the respondent reveal that the petitioner has not admitted the

claim now sought to be put forth by respondent. Thus, the

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS 10

contention so raised by the respondent shall be independently

adjudged in appropriate proceedings, but mere pendency of such

.

proceedings cannot detain this Court from adjudicating upon the

instant petition.

18. In result, the petition is allowed. Order dated

14.05.2024, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur at

Nahan in Criminal Appeal No.117/2023 is set aside and order

dated 06.07.2023, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Rajgarh in Criminal Case No.51/4 of 2023 is restored. The

petitioner is held entitled to interim maintenance of Rs.60,000/-

per month as awarded by learned trial Court.

19. Petition is accordingly disposed of along with pending

application(s), if any.

( Satyen Vaidya ) Judge

July 11, 2025 (vt)

::: Downloaded on - 11/07/2025 21:28:44 :::CIS