Interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is fixed on affidavits and documents, long before evidence is recorded. That makes candour the currency of the exercise. A recent appellate order of the Dwarka Courts in Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. Kavita, CA No. 201/2026, decided on 23 September 2026, shows what happens when the currency is debased: interim maintenance of Rs 12,500 per month was replaced with Rs 6,000 per month confined to the minor child, after bank statements revealed savings the wife had never disclosed.
The dispute
The parties married in 2017. The wife’s application under Section 12 of the DV Act alleged abandonment and claimed she was without income. The Magistrate granted interim maintenance of Rs 12,500 per month under Section 23 read with Section 20. The husband appealed under Section 29 to the Court of Session at Dwarka, placing the wife’s bank statements on record.
The Principal District and Sessions Judge found that the statements showed sustained balances exceeding Rs 6,00,000 across 2020–2023, with only minimal withdrawals — conduct inconsistent with the case of financial hardship pleaded before the Magistrate. Holding that a litigant “cannot be allowed to take advantage of her own wrongs”, the appellate court modified the order: spousal interim maintenance was declined, and Rs 6,000 per month was directed for the minor child alone.
What the order illustrates
The appellate route for DV maintenance orders
Practice pointer for claimants: plead means honestly and explain balances — money held for a specific liability, borrowed funds, or family money parked in an account can all be explained, but only if disclosed. Practice pointer for respondents: obtain and analyse bank statements early; a well-documented Section 29 appeal filed within limitation is often more productive than a belated challenge in the High Court.
Context for Delhi litigants
Delhi’s family and Mahila courts apply the affidavit-of-assets discipline rigorously, and appellate courts in the district judiciary — as this Dwarka order shows — are willing to recalibrate awards where the paper record contradicts the pleaded case. Maintenance remains a needs-and-means exercise: the aim is neither windfall nor penury, and the fastest way to lose the court’s confidence on either side is an affidavit that the bank statements refute.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was concealed in this case?
The wife claimed she had no income and no means. Bank statements placed on record showed she had maintained a balance in the region of Rs 6,00,000 between 2020 and 2023, with minimal withdrawals — a position irreconcilable with the pleaded destitution. The appellate court treated that as suppression of her actual financial resources.
Does concealment disentitle the claimant entirely?
Not necessarily, and not the children. The court reduced spousal support but retained Rs 6,000 per month for the minor child, because a child’s entitlement does not depend on the parent’s conduct in litigation. Each case turns on the degree and materiality of the non-disclosure.
How is an interim maintenance order under the DV Act challenged in Delhi?
By an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act to the Court of Session within thirty days. That is the route the husband successfully took here. Further challenge lies to the High Court, ordinarily under Section 528 BNSS or in revision, on questions of jurisdiction or perversity.
What documents matter most at the interim stage?
The income and asset affidavits of both parties, bank statements, salary slips or ITRs, and proof of expenses. Courts fix interim maintenance on this paper record, so verified, complete disclosure — and pointed exposure of the other side’s gaps — usually decides the outcome.