Interim maintenance orders are meant to keep an aggrieved woman financially afloat while her case is fought. What happens when the respondent simply refuses to pay? In two connected appeals decided on 1 September 2026 — Rahul Bhargav v. Divya Sharma — the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge-06, Saket Courts, upheld the trial court's decision to strike off a defaulting husband's defence, holding his non-payment to be deliberate and wilful. The decision applies the enforcement framework laid down by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and is a sharp reminder that interim maintenance is an order, not a suggestion.
How the matter reached the Sessions Court
The wife had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alongside criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC. The Magistrate granted interim maintenance under Section 23. The husband did not pay. After the arrears mounted, the trial court struck off his defence. He appealed against both that order and the dismissal of his application seeking relief from the arrears, contending that his employment had ended in August 2019 and that medical difficulties disabled him from earning.
What the appellate court held
The Sessions Court dismissed both appeals. Three strands of reasoning stand out.
The enforcement ladder in maintenance matters
Delhi practice now follows a recognisable escalation when maintenance orders are ignored:
Why the decision matters
Respondents sometimes treat interim maintenance as negotiable — something to be adjusted against future settlement, or ignored while appeals are explored. This judgment shows the risk in that strategy. The right to defend a DV case is not absolute; it coexists with the obligation to obey the court\'s interim directions. A respondent who wants the court\'s ear must first respect the court\'s orders. Conversely, the decision preserves the safeguards: default must be wilful, the measure a last resort, and genuine incapacity — proved, not merely asserted — remains a defence through the modification route under Section 25(2).
Medical or employment difficulties are addressed prospectively by seeking modification with documents, not retrospectively by defaulting and explaining later. The date on which the application for modification is filed usually marks the earliest point from which any reduction can operate.
Applicants: maintain a clean arrears ledger, and seek striking off only after the court\'s coercive steps have been given a chance — premature requests are refused.
Respondents: pay what fell due while you earned; contest quantum through appeal or modification, never through silent default.
Both sides: interim maintenance orders under Section 23 DV Act are appealable under Section 29, but an appeal does not by itself stay the obligation to pay.
The appeals were dismissed and the trial court\'s orders affirmed. This article describes the decision for general information; it is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a court really strike off a husband's defence for not paying interim maintenance?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha recognised striking off the defence as a permissible enforcement measure where there is wilful and contumacious non-compliance with a maintenance order, provided it is used as a last resort after the defaulter has had the opportunity to comply. Delhi courts apply this in DV Act and Section 144 BNSS proceedings alike.
What counts as "wilful" default?
Default is wilful when the respondent has the means, or had them during the relevant period, and still chooses not to pay — as opposed to genuine, proven incapacity. Courts examine employment history, admitted income, lifestyle and the timing of the default. Arrears that accrued while the respondent was earning remain payable even if he later loses his job.
Does losing the defence mean the case is over?
Striking off the defence means the respondent can no longer cross-examine or lead evidence in opposition; the court proceeds on the aggrieved person's material. The applicant must still prove her case to the court's satisfaction, but the practical advantage shifts decisively.
What should a respondent who genuinely cannot pay do?
Move promptly under Section 25(2) of the DV Act or the corresponding provision for modification, placing documentary proof of the changed circumstances — termination letters, medical records, income tax returns. Silence followed by accumulating arrears is treated as wilful default, not hardship.