Interim and final maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 passes through as many as three judicial levels — the Magistrate, the Sessions Court in appeal under Section 29, and the High Court in revision. Each level can adjust the figure, but not arbitrarily. In Criminal Revision No. 126 of 2020 (2026:UHC:8519), decided on 22 September 2026, Justice Alok Mahra held that an appellate court which slashes a Magistrate’s maintenance award must record reasons anchored in the respondent’s means — and restored an award the appellate court had reduced by nearly two-thirds without adequate justification.
The facts
The parties married on 2 May 1998. The wife’s case was of sustained physical and mental cruelty, culminating in an assault and her eviction from the matrimonial home on 1 July 2011. She invoked Section 12 of the DV Act, and the Magistrate awarded ₹10,000 per month as maintenance together with ₹1,500 towards rent. In the husband’s appeal under Section 29, the figure was cut to ₹3,500. The wife carried the matter to the High Court in revision.
The High Court’s reasoning
Justice Alok Mahra’s analysis was straightforward: the respondent was a government employee drawing approximately ₹65,000 a month and owned agricultural property, and the appellate court’s drastic reduction “has not been adequately justified.” Where the first court’s award is proportionate to proven means, an appellate court cannot substitute a lower figure without confronting that evidence and recording why the original award was excessive. The trial court’s award of ₹10,000 plus ₹1,500 rent was restored with effect from the date of the order, with 20% of arrears payable within three months.
The staggering of arrears is a familiar judicial technique: it protects the award’s integrity while giving the paying spouse a realistic compliance path — and it creates a concrete default marker for enforcement if payments slip.
The three-tier structure in DV maintenance litigation
| Level | Provision | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Magistrate | Ss. 12, 20 & 23 DV Act | Grants interim and final monetary relief, including maintenance, rent and expenses |
| Court of Session | S. 29 DV Act | Appeal against Magistrate’s orders — re-appreciates evidence but must justify any variation |
| High Court | Revisional / inherent jurisdiction | Corrects jurisdictional error and perversity, including unexplained appellate reductions |
What “adequately justified” means in practice
Engage the income record
An appellate court varying maintenance must anchor the new figure in the respondent’s established income, assets and liabilities — salary slips, the income affidavit, property holdings — not in impression.
Address the original reasoning
Variation requires identifying an error in the first court’s approach: an overlooked liability, an inflated income finding, a changed circumstance. Silence on these is what doomed the appellate order here.
Preserve proportionality
₹10,000 against a ₹65,000 salary is about 15% of income — comfortably within the range courts treat as reasonable for a single dependant, which made the cut to ₹3,500 indefensible.
Lessons for both sides of a DV maintenance file
For the wife’s side, the case underscores the value of a clean evidentiary record on the husband’s means: a documented salary and identified assets convert a revision from argument into arithmetic. For the husband’s side, it is a reminder that appellate relief against a maintenance award must be built on demonstrated error — liabilities proved, income findings challenged with material, or supervening events — because a reduction won without reasons is a reduction that will not survive revision. Both sides should also note the enforcement backdrop: DV Act monetary orders are enforceable under Section 20(6) read with the BNSS maintenance machinery, and accumulating arrears during appellate rounds remains recoverable.
Core holding: an appellate court under Section 29 DV Act may vary maintenance, but a reduction unsupported by reasons referable to the payer’s means is perverse and liable to be set aside in revision.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Maintenance outcomes depend on the income record and evidence in each case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What had the trial court awarded?
The Magistrate, on an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, awarded the wife ₹10,000 per month as maintenance and ₹1,500 towards rent. The appellate court reduced the maintenance to ₹3,500 while retaining the rent component; the High Court has now restored the original award.
Why did the High Court interfere with the appellate order?
Because the reduction was not adequately justified. The husband was in government employment earning about ₹65,000 per month and held agricultural property; measured against those means, the appellate court’s cut lacked recorded reasons and could not stand.
From when does the restored amount run, and what about arrears?
The High Court made the restored rate of ₹10,000 plus ₹1,500 rent effective from the date of its order, 22 September 2026, and directed that 20% of the arrears be paid within three months.
Does the same principle apply in Delhi?
Yes. Delhi courts consistently require that maintenance bear a reasonable relation to the respondent’s income and standard of living, assessed through the mandatory income and asset affidavits. An appellate variation — up or down — must engage with that material, failing which revision lies to the High Court.