Interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is decided at a stage when nothing has been proved and everything is denied. What, then, must a Magistrate be satisfied of before ordering interim maintenance under Section 23? The Delhi High Court's judgment in Anurag Manohar Kankerwal v. Soham Rani, pronounced on 4 April 2026, supplies the working answer: the allegations, taken at face value, must fall within the statutory definition of domestic violence in Section 3 — and if they do, disputed questions of truth, falsity and motive are parked for trial, not resolved on affidavits.
The litigation so far
The wife's application under Section 12 of the DV Act (Ct. Cases 2271/2020) yielded an interim maintenance order from the Trial Court on 28 February 2023. Both sides took the dispute to the appellate court under Section 29, which partially modified the order on 1 April 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 45/2023. The husband then invoked the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction in CRL.M.C. 5097/2024, arguing that the very foundation — domestic violence — was absent, and that the allegations against him and his family were false. Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma reserved judgment on 3 February 2026 and pronounced it on 4 April 2026.
The prima facie gate
The Court's approach separates two questions that respondents routinely conflate. Whether the allegations are true is the trial's business. Whether the allegations, assuming them for the moment, amount in law to domestic violence is the interim court's business — and it is a low, definitional gate, not a mini-trial. The wife's allegations included physical assault, verbal abuse and humiliation within the household, and inappropriate and obscene conduct by the husband's brother towards her. Taken at face value, the Court held, such allegations fall within the broad contours of domestic violence as defined under the PWDV Act, and the wife therefore prima facie satisfied the requirements of an aggrieved person under Section 2(a). Whether they are ultimately established can be finally decided only during trial.
Section 3 is wide
Physical, verbal, emotional and economic abuse all qualify; conduct of the respondent's relatives within the shared household can form part of the pattern.
Face-value review
At the interim stage the court assumes the allegations and tests them against the definition — it does not weigh rival affidavits for truth.
Counter-allegations
Bald and unsubstantiated allegations against the aggrieved person do not defeat interim maintenance; disputed documents await evidence.
Trial decides
Everything held prima facie remains open; the final adjudication under Section 12 is untouched by the interim findings.
Money: the Rajnesh v. Neha discipline
On quantum, the judgment is a careful application of Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Interim maintenance is ordinarily payable from the date of filing of the application — here, 20 October 2020 — rather than from the date of separation. And receipts are not ignored: the wife had received Rs. 20,00,000 from the sale of a property, and the Court directed that this sum be adjusted against the monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 25,000 computed from the application date, with the adjustment running until 20 June 2027, whereafter the husband pays consolidated maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month. The structure respects both sides of the ledger: the wife's entitlement accrues from the date she sought relief, and the husband's liability is credited with what she has already received from matrimonial assets.
Application filed
Section 12 DV application with interim prayer under Section 23 (20.10.2020).
Interim order
Magistrate fixes monthly interim maintenance (28.02.2023); appeal partly modifies it (01.04.2024).
High Court review
Prima facie domestic violence affirmed; lump-sum receipt of Rs. 20 lakh adjusted against arrears.
Trial continues
Truth of the allegations, and final relief under Sections 12, 18 to 22, remain for evidence.
Reading the decision from both chairs
For aggrieved persons, the judgment confirms that the DV Act's interim machinery does not stall merely because every allegation is denied or countered: a coherent set of allegations within Section 3 unlocks interim protection, and attacks on her character or conduct must await proof. For respondents, the useful lessons are financial rather than definitional. The decision shows that substantial sums already received by the aggrieved person from family assets are legitimately brought into account, and that the date-of-application rule cuts both ways — it curbs claims reaching back to separation, while making delay in deciding the application expensive. Both sides, finally, should note what the High Court refused to do: convert a Section 29 appeal and a petition against interim orders into a premature trial of the marriage.
Interim orders under the DV Act are temporary arrangements, revisable under Section 25 on change of circumstances and subsumed in the final order under Section 12. Nothing in an interim finding — for either side — predetermines the outcome of the trial, and courts repeatedly caution against treating the interim stage as the main battle.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the husband challenge?
By a petition before the Delhi High Court he challenged the appellate court's judgment of 1 April 2024 under Section 29 of the DV Act, which had modified the Magistrate's interim maintenance order of 28 February 2023 in the wife's Section 12 application. His case was that no domestic violence was made out and the allegations were false, so no interim maintenance could have been granted.
What is the test for "domestic violence" at the interim stage?
A prima facie one. The Court held that it need not decide whether the allegations are true; it asks whether, taken at face value, they fall within Section 3 of the DV Act. Allegations of physical assault, verbal abuse, humiliation and inappropriate conduct within the household were held to fall within the broad contours of domestic violence, making the wife prima facie an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a).
Can interim maintenance be refused because the husband alleges the wife's misconduct?
Not on bald assertions. The Court declined to deny interim maintenance on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations against the wife, holding that the veracity of disputed documents and accusations can only be determined after evidence at trial. Explanation II to Section 3 makes overall facts and conduct relevant, but through evidence, not affidavit warfare.
From when does interim maintenance run, and were past receipts adjusted?
Following Rajnesh v. Neha, interim maintenance was held ordinarily payable from the date of filing the application — here 20 October 2020. The Rs. 20 lakh the wife had received from a property sale was adjusted against the monthly award of Rs. 25,000 up to mid-2027, after which consolidated monthly maintenance becomes payable.