The Rajasthan High Court refused to increase ₹40,000 interim maintenance, holding it is only a temporary arrangement to avoid hardship during trial. The Court made it clear that interim maintenance does not decide final entitlement, income share, or permanent rights.
JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court has once again clarified the real purpose and legal limits of interim maintenance, refusing to enhance the interim amount of ₹40,000 per month granted to a wife during pending domestic violence proceedings.
While dismissing the wife’s revision petition seeking enhancement, the Court explained that interim maintenance is only a temporary relief meant to prevent financial hardship during litigation and cannot be treated as a final decision on entitlement or quantum.
The matter was heard by Justice Farjand Ali, where both the husband and the wife had challenged the same trial court order. The husband questioned the very grant of interim maintenance, while the wife sought an increase, claiming the husband had substantial monthly income. The High Court rejected both challenges and upheld the trial court’s order.
The Court made it clear that interim maintenance is not meant to settle disputed facts or determine permanent financial obligations. It observed that such relief is granted at an early stage without conducting a full trial or examining detailed evidence. The Court explained that interim maintenance does not declare that the wife is finally entitled to maintenance, nor does it decide how much she should ultimately receive after evidence is recorded.
The Court clearly 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.”
The dispute arose from domestic violence proceedings where the trial court had awarded ₹40,000 per month as interim maintenance. Both parties filed appeals, which were dismissed by the appellate court. Thereafter, both approached the High Court through revision petitions. The wife alleged that the amount was inadequate given the husband’s alleged income, while the husband argued that the burden was excessive, especially since the minor child was living with him.
The High Court examined the scope of its powers under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It held that the power to grant interim maintenance is discretionary, provisional, and purely ad-hoc, meant to operate only during the pendency of proceedings.
The Court clarified that interim maintenance does not give any vested right or ownership interest in the husband’s income. It is not a declaration of arrears, nor does it create any permanent financial entitlement. At this stage, the Court does not decide whether the wife actually deserves maintenance, whether she deserves it at all, or what the final amount should be after trial.
On the issue of quantum, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court also underlined that interim maintenance is a measure of social justice aimed at ensuring basic subsistence and dignity, not a tool to equalize incomes or impose punishment. It stressed that courts must avoid turning interim orders into instruments of pressure or assumption of guilt before evidence is tested.
Importantly, the High Court highlighted the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction. It held that a revisional court does not sit as a first appellate court to reassess tentative findings or recalculate interim amounts simply because another view is possible. Interference is justified only when the order is clearly illegal, perverse, or results in manifest injustice.
Applying these principles, the Court found no legal infirmity or perversity in the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court. It held that the ₹40,000 interim maintenance order was passed after considering affidavits, pleadings, and available material, and therefore did not warrant interference.
Accordingly, both the husband’s challenge to the grant of maintenance and the wife’s demand for enhancement were rejected. The Court also clarified that all observations made in the order are strictly limited to the interim stage and will not affect the final adjudication after evidence is led.
The judgment serves as an important reminder that interim maintenance is not a shortcut to final relief and should not be misused as a presumption of permanent liability against men before a full trial. It reinforces that factual disputes, income assessment, and final entitlement must be decided only after proper evidence and cross-examination, not at an interim stage.
Explanatory Table: Laws and Sections Applied in This Case
| Law / Statute | Section | Purpose of the Section | How the Court Interpreted It in This Case |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 12 | Provides the procedure for an aggrieved person to seek reliefs under the DV Act | The main proceedings under this section are still pending; interim maintenance cannot decide final rights under it |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Section 23 | Empowers courts to grant interim and ex-parte orders | Held to be discretionary, ad-hoc and temporary, only to prevent hardship during litigation |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Section 144 | Provision corresponding to interim maintenance powers (similar to old CrPC Section 125 framework) | Treated as provisional relief, not a final determination of entitlement or quantum |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Section 125 (reference through BNSS) | Maintenance to prevent destitution | Used only for subsistence, not to equalise incomes or punish the husband |
| Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 | Sections 438 & 442 | Revisional jurisdiction of High Court | Scope held to be limited; no re-appreciation of facts at interim stage |
Case Details
- Case Title: Divik Ostwal vs Ambika Jain & Connected Petition
- Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farjand Ali
- Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:5657
- Primary Case Numbers: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 684/2025 & S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 845/2025 (Connected)
- Date of Conclusion of Arguments: 29/01/2026
- Date Order Reserved: 29/01/2026
- Date of Pronouncement: 03/02/2026
- Petitioner (CRLR-684/2025): Divik Ostwal (Husband)
- Respondent: Ambika Jain (Wife)
- Petitioner (CRLR-845/2025): Smt. Ambika Jain (Wife)
- Respondents:
- Divik Ostwal
- Virendra Kumar Ostwal
- Anjana Ostwal
- Kapil Ostwal
Counsels
- For Petitioner(s): Mr. Surendra Surana
- For Respondent(s): Mr. Ramit Mehta & Mr. Tarun Dudia
Key Takeaways
- Interim maintenance is only a temporary relief to avoid hardship and does not mean the wife has a final legal right to maintenance.
- Grant of interim maintenance does not decide the husband’s actual income, liability, or final quantum after trial.
- Courts cannot treat interim orders as proof of cruelty or entitlement without evidence and cross-examination.
- Revisional courts will not interfere just because a higher amount is demanded; discretion at interim stage is limited and protected.
- Interim maintenance is not a share in the husband’s earnings and cannot be used to financially pressure men during long trials.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.