The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction under the BNSS, 2023 when challenging interim maintenance orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court declined to interfere with a Rs.25,000 interim maintenance award, emphasizing that revision is not a forum for reappreciating evidence or reassessing financial capacity unless a patent legal error or jurisdictional flaw is evident.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a marital breakdown between Shri Prashant Jaradi (revision petitioner No.1) and Smt. Ankita Jaradi (respondent No.1), who were married on 21.01.2015. A daughter, respondent No.2, was born from the marriage. In October 2022, the wife filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), seeking protection, residence, monetary relief, and custody. Concurrently, she filed an application under Section 23(1) of the PWDVA for interim maintenance.
Key Facts
- The marriage was solemnized on 21.01.2015
- The daughter, respondent No.2, was born during the marriage
- The wife filed the PWDVA application on 14.10.2022
- The JMFC, Ratlam passed an order on 26.09.2024 granting interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to the wife and minor daughter
- The Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam upheld this order on 24.04.2025
- The husband, formerly employed as a Software Engineer in Hyderabad, is now settled in the United States
- The wife is employed as a Software Engineer, but her income was not formally documented before the courts below
- CCTV footage (Annexure-P/8) was relied upon by the petitioners to show the wife voluntarily left the matrimonial home
- Revision petitioners No.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the wife and were not directly ordered to pay maintenance
Procedural History
- 14.10.2022: Application under Section 12 and Section 23(1) of PWDVA filed before JMFC, Ratlam (MJCR No.444/2022)
- 26.09.2024: JMFC, Ratlam granted interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to wife and minor daughter
- 24.04.2025: Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ratlam dismissed the challenge to the JMFC order
- 2026: Criminal Revision No.1120 of 2026 filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Sections 438/442 of BNSS, 2023
- 26.03.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Gajendra Singh
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the interim maintenance order of Rs.25,000/-, arguing that the wife’s income was not considered and that the PWDVA proceedings were filed solely to counter ongoing divorce proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, exercising revisional jurisdiction under the BNSS, 2023, could interfere with an interim maintenance order under Section 23(1) of the PWDVA merely because the wife’s income was not recorded, or whether such interference requires a patent error of law or jurisdiction.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioners contended that the courts below erred in not considering the wife’s income as a Software Engineer, which allegedly rendered the maintenance amount excessive. They argued that the PWDVA application was filed in bad faith to obstruct divorce proceedings and that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, as evidenced by CCTV footage. They relied on the principle that maintenance should be proportionate to the financial capacity of both parties.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent did not file a separate written reply, but the Court noted that the maintenance amount was modest and aligned with the husband’s known capacity to pay. The Court implicitly accepted that the wife’s right to interim relief under PWDVA is independent of divorce proceedings and that the burden to prove her income lay with the petitioners, who failed to adduce evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that the scope of revision under Sections 438/442 of the BNSS, 2023 is extremely narrow. It cannot be used as a second appeal to reappreciate evidence or reassess facts. The Court cited Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh (2022) 8 SCC 2024, observing:
"the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect of an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well-founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. It is also well settled that while considering the same, the Revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings."
The Court held that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was not manifestly excessive given the husband’s employment history and current settlement in the United States. The fact that the wife was employed did not automatically negate her entitlement to interim relief under PWDVA, particularly where her income was not formally established on record. The Court further noted that the petitioners had not challenged the maintenance awarded to the minor daughter, which was legally unassailable. The petitioners’ assertion that the PWDVA application was filed to obstruct divorce proceedings was not substantiated by evidence and could not override the statutory right to interim relief.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was dismissed. The High Court upheld the interim maintenance order of Rs.25,000/- awarded to the wife and minor daughter under Section 23(1) of the PWDVA. The Court found no patent legal error or jurisdictional flaw warranting interference. No modification of the amount, no stay, and no further directions were issued.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Maintenance Under PWDVA Is Not Subject to Reassessment on Revision
- Practitioners must understand that revision petitions under BNSS are not platforms to reargue facts or financial capacity
- Courts will not interfere with interim maintenance amounts unless they are so exorbitant as to constitute a manifest error
- The burden to prove the recipient’s income lies with the party challenging the order
PWDVA Proceedings Are Independent of Matrimonial Disputes
- A PWDVA application cannot be dismissed merely because divorce proceedings are pending
- The remedy under PWDVA is statutory and designed to provide immediate protection, irrespective of the marital status litigation
- Courts will not presume mala fide intent without concrete evidence
Evidence of Voluntary Departure Does Not Automatically Disqualify Maintenance
- CCTV footage or other evidence of the wife leaving the matrimonial home does not extinguish her right to interim relief
- The PWDVA protects women from economic coercion, even if they have left the household
- The focus remains on need and capacity, not on fault or conduct in the marriage
