The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) must be determined based on evidence, not merely on ex parte affidavits. The Court dismissed a revision petition challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000 per month, holding that while the amount was not exorbitant, the final quantum must be decided after recording evidence regarding the incomes of both parties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sunil D.R., and the respondent, Sharada S. Raikar, are estranged spouses. The respondent filed an application under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act seeking interim maintenance. The Trial Court granted an ex parte interim order awarding Rs. 10,000 per month as maintenance, relying solely on the respondent’s affidavit, which stated that the petitioner earned Rs. 85,000 per month as a Risk Manager Engineer at Amazon, Bengaluru.
Key Facts
- The respondent alleged that the petitioner earned Rs. 85,000 per month, as stated in her affidavit
- The petitioner contended that his actual salary was Rs. 38,000 per month and that the respondent was also earning
- The Trial Court granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act without recording evidence
- The petitioner sought modification of the ex parte interim order, arguing that the maintenance amount was based on unverified claims
Procedural History
- Application under Section 23(2) PWDV Act: Filed by the respondent before the JMFC III Court, Mangaluru
- 20.12.2025: Trial Court granted ex parte interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month
- Criminal Appeal No. 188/2025: Filed by the petitioner before the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K. Mangaluru
- 12.09.2025: First Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s order, noting that the interim maintenance was for subsistence and did not require modification
- Criminal Revision Petition No. 1674/2025: Filed before the Karnataka High Court challenging the orders of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court
- 03.06.2026: High Court disposed of the revision petition with directions to the Trial Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Setting aside of the ex parte interim order dated 20.12.2025
- Modification of the interim maintenance amount based on evidence of both parties’ incomes
- Dismissal of the respondent’s interim application in its entirety
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an ex parte interim maintenance order under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act can be sustained solely on the basis of the respondent’s affidavit, without recording evidence regarding the incomes of both parties.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner’s actual income was Rs. 38,000 per month, not Rs. 85,000 as claimed by the respondent
- The respondent was also earning, and this fact should have been considered before granting interim maintenance
- The Trial Court and First Appellate Court erred in granting interim maintenance without recording evidence
- The interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month was arbitrary and not based on merits
For the Respondent
- The respondent’s affidavit stated that the petitioner earned Rs. 85,000 per month, which was sufficient to grant interim maintenance
- The Trial Court and First Appellate Court rightly relied on Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act, which permits ex parte interim orders
- The interim maintenance was for subsistence and did not require detailed evidence at the interim stage
The Court's Analysis
The High Court observed that while the Trial Court and First Appellate Court had granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000 per month, the amount was not exorbitant. However, the Court emphasized that the final determination of maintenance must be based on evidence regarding the incomes of both parties. The Court relied on the principle that interim orders under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act are temporary measures for subsistence and cannot substitute a final determination on merits.
"The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have taken note of the fact that the interim-maintenance awarded is only Rs. 10,000/- per month and the same is not exorbitant. However, it is subject to the evidence to be recorded by the Trial Court with regard to income of both the petitioner and the respondent."
The Court further noted that the petitioner was directed to continue paying the interim maintenance without default, pending the final decision by the Trial Court. The Court disposed of the revision petition with the observation that the Trial Court must decide the quantum of maintenance based on evidence.
The Verdict
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000 per month. However, the Court directed the Trial Court to decide the final quantum of maintenance after recording evidence regarding the incomes of both parties. The petitioner was directed to continue paying the interim maintenance without default.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Interim Maintenance Must Be Evidence-Based
- Courts must ensure that interim maintenance orders under Section 23(2) of the PWDV Act are not based solely on ex parte affidavits
- The final determination of maintenance must involve recording evidence regarding the incomes of both parties
- Practitioners should argue for evidence-based adjudication even at the interim stage to avoid arbitrary orders
Subsistence Maintenance Is Not Final Adjudication
- Interim maintenance is intended for subsistence and cannot substitute a final order
- The Court’s observation that Rs. 10,000 per month was not exorbitant highlights the need for proportionality in interim orders
- Parties must be prepared to present evidence of income and financial status to avoid unjust interim orders
Revisional Jurisdiction Is Limited
- The High Court will not interfere with interim orders unless they are grossly disproportionate or arbitrary
- Practitioners must focus on presenting strong evidence at the Trial Court stage to avoid adverse interim orders
- The Court’s reluctance to modify the interim order underscores the importance of thorough preparation in maintenance cases
