CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 1 of 22

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 04.04.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 04.04.2026

+ CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 & CRL.M.A. 19483/2024

ANURAG MANOHAR KANKERWAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Prateek Jain, Advocate.

versus

SOHAM RANI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Sunnirudh Kumar and Ms.

Ruby Rani, Advocates

CORAM:

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

1. By way of present petition, the petitioner-husband seeks

setting aside of the judgment dated 01.04.2024 [hereafter „impugned

judgment‟], passed by the learned ASJ-05, Shahadra, Karkardooma

Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Appellate Court‟], in Criminal Appeal No.

45/2023 preferred under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter „PWDV Act‟], whereby the

order dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned MM (Mahila Court)-

01, Shahadra, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Trial Court‟] in

Ct. Cases 2271/2020, instituted by the respondent-wife under Section

12 of the PWDV Act, was partially modified.

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 2 of 22

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the

marriage between the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife

was solemnised on 13.11.2013 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.

Out of the said wedlock, two male children, „S‟ and „A‟, were born

on 25.08.2015 and 06.05.2017 respectively. However, owing to

matrimonial discord between the parties, their relationship

deteriorated and they started living separately in March 2019. It is

stated that the elder son „S‟ is presently in the custody of the

petitioner-husband, whereas the younger son „A‟ is in the custody of

the respondent-wife.

3. Thereafter, on the basis of a complaint dated 31.08.2020 filed

by the respondent-wife, FIR bearing No. 265/2020 was registered for

offences under Sections 34/406/498A/354A of the IPC.

4. Subsequently, on 20.10.2020, the respondent-wife filed an

application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act against the petitioner-

husband and his family members, levelling several allegations of

mental, physical and economic abuse, including allegations of

beating and abusing her, levelling false allegations against her, and

the petitioner-husband engaging in illicit relationships with other

women. It was further alleged that in March 2019 she was thrown out

of her matrimonial home and, since then, has been residing at her

parental home along with the minor son „A‟. It was also stated that

the petitioner-husband was employed as a Junior Engineer in MCD

and was earning about ₹80,000/- per month as salary, along with

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 3 of 22

rental income of about ₹1,00,000/- per month.

5. During the course of proceedings, the statement of the

respondent-wife was recorded by the learned Trial Court on

14.03.2022, wherein she stated that a property in Rohini had been

purchased in her name by the petitioner-husband in the year 2018 for

about ₹40,00,000/-, for which the petitioner-husband had arranged

the finances. She further stated that after their separation in April

2019, the said property was sold with her consent and she received

about ₹40,00,000/- as sale consideration in her bank account. Out of

the said amount, about ₹20,00,000/- was utilised towards repayment

of a bank loan and the remaining amount was withdrawn by her. She

further stated that the said amount had been spent by her during the

years 2020 and 2021 towards the upkeep of herself and the minor

child in her custody, and that about ₹2,00,000/- was still available

with her for meeting her expenses.

6. Eventually, vide order dated 28.02.2023, the learned Trial

Court directed the petitioner-husband to pay ₹15,000/- per month to

the respondent-wife and ₹10,000/- per month to the minor son „A‟ as

interim maintenance, with effect from the date of passing of the said

order. The learned Trial Court further observed that the sale

consideration amount of ₹20,00,000/-, which had admittedly been

received by the respondent-wife, shall be adjusted towards the

interim maintenance for the period from April 2019, i.e., when she

had left the matrimonial home, till the date of passing of the said

order, which would amount to about ₹40,000/- per month. The

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 4 of 22

concluding portion of the order reads as under:

“...In view of the above discussion, R1 is directed to make

payment of interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to

complainant and Rs. 10,000/- per month for the minor child

namely Aarav directly into bank account of complainant from

the date of the present order i.e. 28.02.2023 till disposal of the

present complaint or till such time, complainant is entitled to

receive the same or the child attains majority, whichever is

earlier. Interim maintenance is awarded from the date of the

order as the complainant has herself admitted to have received

Rs. 20,00,000/- in lieu of sale consideration which even if

calculated month wise turns out to be approximately Rs.

40,000/- per month since April, 2019. Complainant is already

staying at her matrimonial house and her right to residence was

secured vide order dated 14.03.2023 therefore, relief of

payment of any rental expenses for securing alternate

accommodation is hereby declined. Any amount already paid

in any other proceedings shall be adjusted in the present matter

upon actual payment…”

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2023, the

petitioner-husband preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate

Court. The learned Appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment

dated 01.04.2024, held that the interim maintenance amount of

₹25,000/- per month granted to the respondent-wife and the minor

child ought to have been adjusted against the sum of ₹20,00,000/-

admittedly received by the respondent-wife from the date of

separation, i.e., April 2019, and that the said amount would

accordingly cover the period till December 2025. Thus, it was

directed that the amount of interim maintenance of ₹15,000/- per

month payable to the respondent-wife shall become payable only

with effect from 01.01.2026 till disposal of the petition. However, it

was also observed that since the petitioner-husband had expressed

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 5 of 22

willingness to pay towards the expenses of the minor son „A‟, the

amount of ₹10,000/- per month as interim maintenance for the minor

child shall be payable from the date of passing of the order dated

28.02.2023. The concluding portion of the order reads as under:

“12. A bare reading of the impugned order would provide that

Ld. Trial Court adopted a self-contradictory approach to adjust

the amount already paid and the one granted prospectively.

Considering the period from April 2019 to February 2023 (both

months inclusive) to be 47 months, respondent/wife utilized

Rs. 42,550/- (approximately) per month on the sustenance of

herself and her one child. Further, Ld. Trial Court after

considering the respective income affidavits of both parties,

assessed the monthly interim maintenance to be Rs. 25,000/-.

There is no reasonable explanation of adopting such an

approach. In the opinion of this Court, respondent/wife and her

child were either entitled to receive interim maintenance of Rs.

40,000/- per month w.e.f April 2019 or they were entitled to

Rs. 25,000/- per month from the said date. While Ld. Trial

Court has passed a reasoned order for deciding the interim

maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month, there is no reason why

an amount much higher than this one was awarded for the

initial years. While the expenses increase with time, growth of

child and due to inflation over the years, the opposite thereof is

hypothetical and unreasonable.

13. In such circumstances, this Court is also of the opinion that

Ld. Trial Court after assessment of interim maintenance

amount of Rs. 25,000/- per month, should have adjusted the

amount of Rs. 20 lacs admittedly received by her, at the rate of

said monthly amount and not otherwise. In that case, Rs.

25,000/- per month w.e.f April 2019 would have served the

respondent/wife and her minor child for a period of 80 months

i.e. till December 2025. Having observed this, it is hereby

ordered that respondent/wife shall not be entitled to any

monthly interim maintenance till 31.12.2025 having utilised

the amount of Rs. 20 lacs received by her in the year 2019, The

amount of interim maintenance of Rs, 15,000/- per month to

respondent/wife shall be payable with effect from ot,O 1,2026

till the disposal of pending complaint before Ld. Trial Court or

till such time, respondent/wife is entitled to received the same,

whichever is earlier.”

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 6 of 22

8. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed before

this Court.

SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE COURT

9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband

argues that the respondent-wife used to subject the petitioner to acts

of domestic violence by allegedly administering poisoned food to

him and by using abusive language on a daily basis. It is further

argued that, while passing the impugned orders, the learned Trial

Court failed to take into consideration the financial liabilities and

expenses of the petitioner, such as payment of home loan instalments,

health insurance, LIC premiums, school fees, medical expenses, and

other necessary expenditures. It is further argued that the learned

Trial Court failed to appreciate the petitioner‟s allegation that the

respondent was in an illicit relationship with her female friend and

that she was allegedly planning and hatching a conspiracy to harm

the petitioner and his family members. It is also contended that the

respondent is a postgraduate with good educational qualifications and

was gainfully employed prior to the separation; however, she has

deliberately left her employment in order to claim maintenance from

the petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the

respondent, in her statement recorded on 14.03.2022 before the

learned Trial Court, had admitted that the property bearing No. B-

1128, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi had been purchased by the petitioner

in her name and that the entire sale consideration had been arranged

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 7 of 22

by the petitioner. It is submitted that the said property was

subsequently sold by the respondent and she received a sum of

₹40,00,000/- as sale consideration, out of which ₹20,00,000/- was

utilised by her towards repayment of the bank loan which had been

availed for purchasing the property, while the remaining ₹20,00,000/-

was retained and utilised by her. It is further submitted that the

petitioner is bearing the expenses of his aged parents as well as the

elder son who is residing with him, and is also contributing towards

the expenses of the younger son „A‟, who is in the custody of the

respondent. It is also argued that the learned Appellate Court, while

deciding the appeal, erred in directing that the amount of

₹20,00,000/- received by the respondent-wife from the sale of the

property be adjusted towards maintenance from the date of separation

of the parties, i.e., April 2019, instead of from the date of filing of the

application under PWDV Act. It is also contended that the learned

Appellate Court erred in granting an additional sum of ₹10,000/- per

month towards maintenance of the minor child, since the amount of

₹25,000/- per month already taken into account for adjustment

included the expenses of the child. On these grounds, it is prayed that

the impugned judgment and orders be set aside.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-wife argues that the petitioner-husband and his family

members used to harass, humiliate and misbehave with the

respondent-wife despite the fact that sufficient articles, as per the

demands of the petitioner and his family members, had been given by

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 8 of 22

the family of the respondent at the time of marriage. It is further

argued that in March 2019, the respondent, along with the younger

son, was thrown out of the matrimonial home and, having no other

option, she returned to her parental home along with the minor child.

It is further submitted that the respondent has categorically denied the

allegations regarding any illicit relationship with her friend. Rather, it

is alleged that the petitioner herein had hacked the respondent‟s

mobile phone and used to control and monitor her messages and

calls. It is also submitted that the bank account in question had been

opened by the respondent under pressure from the petitioner and that

even thereafter, the passbook as well as the ATM/Debit card

remained in the possession of the petitioner, who used to operate the

account and carry out transactions on his own. The learned counsel

for the respondent-wife further submits that the respondent had

purchased a property for a sum of about ₹40,00,000/-, for which the

amount had been arranged from multiple sources, i.e. ₹5,00,000/-

from her father-in-law, ₹10,00,000/- from the petitioner, ₹5,00,000/-

from her personal savings, and ₹20,00,000/- through a housing loan.

It is submitted that the said property was subsequently sold for

₹42,00,000/-, out of which ₹20,00,000/- was repaid to the bank

towards the housing loan, ₹5,00,000/- was returned to the father-in-

law, and ₹6,00,000/- was returned to the petitioner, while the

remaining amount was retained by the respondent-wife for the

upkeep and maintenance of herself and the minor child. It is further

contended that after the separation, the petitioner sold the

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 9 of 22

matrimonial home bearing House No. 315, I Floor, C-2, Yamuna

Vihar, Delhi–110053 on 19.06.2020 without any information,

consent or knowledge of the respondent. It is also alleged that the

petitioner deliberately concealed his permanent address not only from

the respondent but also from the Court, and that only pursuant to

directions of the Court did the petitioner file his present address. It is

lastly submitted that after the separation, the petitioner did not spend

any amount towards the maintenance, residence or welfare of the

respondent-wife and the children, and thus, it is prayed that the

present petition be dismissed, as no interference is warranted in the

impugned judgment and order.

11. This Court has heard arguments addressed by the learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the

respondent, and has perused the material available on record.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

12. The issues that arise for consideration before this Court are: (i)

whether the respondent-wife is entitled to grant of interim

maintenance under the provisions of the PWDV Act in the facts and

circumstances of the present case; (ii) whether the allegations raised

by the petitioner-husband regarding the conduct of the respondent-

wife, including the plea that she was in an illicit relationship and had

subjected him to acts of cruelty, disentitle her from claiming

maintenance; (iii) if the respondent-wife is held entitled to

maintenance, what would be the appropriate quantum of interim

maintenance payable to her and the minor child; and (iv) whether the

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 10 of 22

learned Appellate Court was justified in directing that the amount of

₹20,00,000/-, admittedly received by the respondent-wife from the

sale of the property, be adjusted towards the interim maintenance

from the date of separation of the parties and in directing payment of

interim maintenance in favour of the respondent-wife and the minor

child in the manner reflected in the impugned judgment.

13. The first aspect relates to the argument of the petitioner-

husband that he never subjected the respondent-wife to domestic

violence and that, rather, he himself was a victim of domestic

violence at her hands. It is contended that the allegations levelled

against him by the respondent are false and that there is no material

on record which even prima facie suggests that the respondent was

subjected to cruelty or harassment by him. It is also his case that the

material on record shows that the respondent had attempted to poison

him, was engaged in an illicit relationship with one of her female

friends, and frequently used abusive language towards him.

14. At the outset, this Court notes that the existence of a domestic

relationship between the parties is not in dispute, since the marriage

between them is admitted. A bare perusal of the application filed by

the respondent-wife under Section 12 of the PWDV Act reveals that

she has levelled several allegations of being subjected to cruelty and

harassment by the petitioner-husband and his family members. These

allegations, inter alia, include that they used to beat her, abuse her

and humiliate her for bringing insufficient dowry from her parental

home. There are also allegations of inappropriate and obscene

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 11 of 22

conduct by the brother of the petitioner towards her, as well as

allegations of physical assault by the petitioner and his family

members. Such allegations, if taken at face value, fall within the

broad contours of „domestic violence‟ as defined under the PWDV

Act.

15. The learned Appellate Court, in this regard, has observed as

under in the impugned judgment:

“9. As regards the issue of domestic violence, it is categorically

stated in the petition u/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act by

respondent/wife that appellant/husband and his family

members used to harass, humiliate and misbehave with her. It

is also alleged that he used to fight and had violent behaviour

with her. She has also referred to different incidents when she

was subjected to physical, emotional and economic abuse by

appellant/husband.

It is observed that all allegations of domestic violence,

although controverted by appellant/ husband, prima facie

reflect infliction of domestic violence upon respondent/wife for

the purpose of deciding the issue of interim maintenance.

Although, one of the grounds of preferring the present appeal is

non infliction of any domestic violence by appellant/husband,

however, the issue can be finally decided only during trial.”

16. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, both the learned Trial Court

and the learned Appellate Court have rightly formed a view that, at

this stage, the respondent-wife prima facie satisfies the requirements

of an „aggrieved person‟ as defined under Section 2(a) of the PWDV

Act, since the existence of a domestic relationship between the

parties and the allegations of domestic violence during the

subsistence of such relationship are prima facie borne out from the

record.

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 12 of 22

17. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner–husband is that the respondent–wife was involved

in an illicit relationship with one of her female friends. In support of

this allegation, reliance is placed on an order dated 19.11.2022 passed

by the learned Trial Court in the present case, wherein the learned

counsel for the respondent had admitted document Annexure „I‟

(pages 127 to 129), which was stated to be a settlement between the

parties. The said settlement dated 04.03.2015 has been placed on

record and purportedly indicates that the respondent had admitted to

communicating with her female friend over the phone and

intentionally instigating quarrels with the petitioner in order to meet

her.

18. However, it is to be noted that the respondent had admitted the

said document before the learned Trial Court on 19.11.2022 only to

the extent that it had been prepared during the course of settlement

discussions between the parties. Further, a perusal of the aforesaid

document/settlement deed does not specifically reveal any admission

that the respondent herein was in any relationship with her friend.

Furthermore, this Court‟s attention has also been drawn to another

case pending between the parties i.e. HMA 234/2020 (Soham Rani

vs. Anurag Manohar Kankarwal), wherein during the examination of

respondent-wife on 01.12.2022 before the concerned Court, she

admitted that the signatures appearing on the aforesaid document

were hers, while specifically denying the allegation that she was in

any illicit relationship with her friend. In these circumstances, this

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 13 of 22

Court is of the view that the veracity and evidentiary value of the said

document, as well as the allegations arising therefrom, can only be

determined upon a full-fledged trial after appreciation of evidence. At

this stage, the issue remains a disputed question of fact.

19. The learned Appellate Court also, in this regard, has rightly

observed as under:

“10. Firstly, as regards one affidavit dated 03.03.2015 which

was admitted and acknowledged by respondent/wife vide

ordersheet dated 19.11.2022 of Ld. Trial Court, it is observed

that the said document was prepared way back in 2015 as a part

of alleged settlement between the parties (as recorded in

ordersheet dated 19.11.2022). The said document, as it stands

on record today, does not affect the relationship or status of

parties as husband and wife. Further, the said document and

circumstances under which it was prepared, are yet to be tested

on the touchstone of cross-examination. As such, the „impact‟

of such a document or impact of admission of „existence‟

thereof is strictly a matter of trial. In the opinion of this Court,

this affidavit cannot be considered as a factor too significant to

deny the right of interim maintenance to the respondent/wife.”

20. In Ajay Kumar v. Uma: 2024 SCC OnLine Del 148, a

Coordinate Bench of this Court held that interim maintenance under

the PWDV Act cannot be denied merely on the basis of

unsubstantiated allegations of an illicit relationship.

21. This Bench also, in Ateet Jain v. Chhavi Jain:

2026:DHC:913, in context of PWDV Act, has observed as under:

“21. Notably, unlike Section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C., there is no

express statutory bar under the PWDV Act disentitling a

woman from seeking reliefs merely on the allegation that she is

living in adultery. However, Explanation II to Section 3 of the

PWDV Act clarifies that, for the purposes of determining

whether any act, omission or conduct constitutes “domestic

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 14 of 22

violence”, the overall facts and circumstances of the case are

required to be taken into consideration. Thus, any material or

evidence relating to the conduct of the wife, including

allegations of adultery, would undoubtedly be a relevant factor;

however, the same would essentially be a matter requiring

adjudication after evidence is led.”

22. Therefore, at this stage, the Court is only required to examine

whether a prima facie case exists against the petitioner–husband, and

a perusal of the allegations made by the respondent–wife indicates

that such a prima facie case is indeed made out. In view of the above,

this Court does not find it appropriate to deny interim maintenance to

the respondent merely on the ground of bald and unsubstantiated

allegations that she is, or earlier was, in any alleged illicit

relationship.

23. Next, the issue of quantum of maintenance is to be considered.

It has been contended by the petitioner-husband that the order

granting maintenance was passed without properly analysing his

financial liabilities. According to the petitioner, he is required to

incur several monthly expenses, including payment of a home loan

instalment of about ₹40,000/- per month, health insurance premium

of about ₹20,000/-, LIC policy premiums, school fees of the elder son

amounting to ₹11,000/- per month, and household expenses of about

₹20,000/- per month. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also

responsible for maintaining his aged parents, including their daily

and medical expenses, and that he is also contributing towards the

expenses of his younger son who is presently in the custody of the

respondent-wife.

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 15 of 22

24. In the considered opinion of this Court, the settled legal

position is that voluntary expenses such as repayment of loans, LIC

premiums and health insurance premiums cannot override the

statutory duty to pay maintenance. In other words, a person cannot, in

the garb of such financial commitments, evade or dilute his legal and

moral obligation to maintain his wife and child. The obligation to

provide maintenance to the wife and the minor child is a paramount

responsibility, and the petitioner cannot be permitted to defeat the

same by placing undue reliance on liabilities which are either

voluntary in nature or arise out of his personal financial

arrangements. Only statutory deductions from salary are ordinarily

taken into account while determining interim maintenance. In this

regard, reference may be made to the decision of the Division Bench

of this Court in Subhash v. Mamta @ Raksha: MAT. APP. (F.C.)

No. 195/2025, decided on 26.05.2025, wherein it was categorically

held that repayment of personal loans and EMIs voluntarily

undertaken by the earning spouse cannot be treated as permissible

deductions so as to dilute or override the primary obligation to

maintain a dependent spouse or child. The Court reiterated that the

determination of maintenance must be based on the “free income” of

the earning spouse and not on the net income that remains after

accounting for voluntary financial commitments.

25. Further, as regards the assessment of the income of the

petitioner-husband, the material on record, including the salary slip,

indicates that he earns about ₹80,000/- per month, which is also the

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 16 of 22

admitted income of the petitioner. The petitioner has also stated that

he bears the financial responsibility of his aged father and mother,

both aged more than 80 years, as well as the elder son who is

presently in his custody.

26. In such a situation where there are two children, the wife, and

the husband‟s aged parents, the income of the husband may be

apportioned by allocating two shares to the husband and one share

each to the wife, both children and both parents, as explained by this

Court in Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra: 2004 SCC OnLine Del

192. Applying the said principle, and considering the petitioner‟s

monthly income to be about ₹80,000/-, the amount of interim

maintenance payable to the respondent-wife and the minor son,

assessed at ₹25,000/- per month by the learned Trial Court, appears

to be reasonable and fair in the facts and circumstances of the present

case.

27. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner–husband is that the

respondent–wife is a well-educated woman holding a postgraduate

degree (M.A.), and that she was employed prior to the separation of

the parties but has deliberately chosen not to work in order to claim

maintenance from the petitioner.

28. This contention, however, is not supported by any material on

record. At this stage, there is nothing to indicate that the respondent

was independently employed prior to the separation of the parties. It

has been stated that a beauty parlour had been opened by the

petitioner himself, but even there another girl had been appointed to

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 17 of 22

run the parlour as the respondent allegedly did not possess the

requisite skills to manage the work of a parlour. Apart from this, no

document or material has been placed on record to demonstrate that

the respondent was gainfully employed at any point of time.

29. In this regard, this Court is also of the view that there is a clear

distinction between a person being capable of earning and a person

actually earning. It is well settled that mere educational qualification

or the capacity to earn does not ipso facto establish that a wife is

actually earning. The distinction between the ability to earn and

actual income has been recognised by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in

Shailja & Anr. v. Khobbanna: (2018) 12 SCC 199.

30. Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of any material to

indicate that the respondent-wife is actually employed or earning any

independent income, there is no ground to deny interim maintenance

to her merely on the basis that she is a postgraduate.

31. Lastly, the attention of this Court has been drawn to the fact

that a property situated in Rohini had been purchased in the name of

the respondent-wife and was subsequently sold for a sum of about

₹40,00,000/- by her. It has come on record that out of the said sale

consideration, ₹20,00,000/- (approximately) were utilised towards

repayment of the housing loan taken for purchase of the property,

while the remaining amount of about ₹20,00,000/- was received by

the respondent and used by her for her personal expenses and for the

upkeep of herself and the minor child in her custody.

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 18 of 22

32. This Court notes that the property in question had already been

sold in May 2019. The respondent–wife, in her statement dated

14.03.2022 before the learned Trial Court, admitted that while living

separately from the petitioner-husband, she had sold the property

bearing No. D-1/28, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, for a total

consideration of ₹40,00,000/-. The said property had originally been

purchased in her name, for which a bank loan had been availed, along

with finances arranged by the petitioner-husband for its purchase.

The respondent further stated that in April 2019, after the parties had

separated, the petitioner had approached her for sale of the said

property, to which she had agreed.

33. It was also admitted by the respondent that out of the total sale

consideration of ₹40,00,000/-, a sum of ₹20,00,000/- was utilised

towards repayment of the bank loan which had been availed for

purchase of the property, while the remaining amount of ₹20,00,000/-

was withdrawn and retained by her. According to the petitioner, this

amount belonged to him and his father, as the same had been

advanced to the respondent as a loan at the time of purchasing the

property. On the other hand, the respondent has stated that the

remaining amount was utilised by her for her personal expenses and

for the upbringing of the younger son „A‟.

34. In this regard, this Court observes that the learned Trial Court,

vide order dated 28.02.2023, had awarded an amount of ₹25,000/- per

month as interim maintenance to the respondent and the minor son in

her custody. The learned Trial Court had also taken into account the

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 19 of 22

amount of ₹20,00,000/- received by the respondent from the sale of

the property and had adjusted the same by calculating a notional

amount of about ₹40,000/- per month for the period from April 2019

to February 2023, i.e., from the date of separation of the parties till

the passing of the order dated 28.02.2023. The learned Trial Court

had accordingly directed that the interim maintenance of ₹25,000/-

per month in favour of the respondent-wife and the minor son „A‟

shall be payable from the date of the order, i.e., 28.02.2023.

35. Subsequently, the learned Sessions Court, while adjudicating

the appeal vide the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2024, modified

the calculation made by the learned Trial Court. The learned

Appellate Court directed that the amount of ₹20,00,000/- received by

the respondent-wife from the sale of the property, which was

admittedly utilised by her for maintenance, be adjusted at the rate of

₹25,000/- per month with effect from April 2019 onwards, which

would cover the period till December 2025. Accordingly, it was

directed that the amount of ₹15,000/- per month towards maintenance

of the respondent-wife (out of the total interim maintenance of

₹25,000/-) would become payable only from 01.01.2026 onwards.

However, at the same time, the learned Appellate Court observed that

since the petitioner-husband, in his income affidavit, had expressed

willingness to bear the necessary expenses of the minor son who is in

the custody of the respondent-wife, the amount of ₹10,000/- per

month towards interim maintenance of the minor child would be

payable from the date of the order itself, i.e., 28.02.2023.

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 20 of 22

36. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the respondent-wife has

specifically stated before this Court, as also in the written arguments

filed on record, that she has no grievance with the amount of

₹20,00,000/- received by her from sale consideration of property

being adjusted against interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per month

from April 2019 to 31.12.2025, and she being granted interim

maintenance w.e.f. 01.01.2026.

37. This Court notes that both the learned Trial Court and the

learned Appellate Court, while adjusting the amount of ₹20,00,000/-

received by the respondent-wife from the sale of the property towards

interim maintenance, have computed the adjustment from the date of

separation of the parties, i.e., April 2019, and not from the date of

filing of the application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, which

was filed on 20.10.2020.

38. It is well settled that interim maintenance is ordinarily to be

granted from the date of filing of the application. In Rajnesh v.

Neha: (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has observed

as under:

“89. Even though a judicial discretion is conferred upon the

Court to grant maintenance either from the date of application

or from the date of the order in Section 125(2) Code of

Criminal Procedure, it would be appropriate to grant

maintenance from the date of application in all cases, including

Section 125 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the practical

working of the provisions relating to maintenance, we find that

there is significant delay in disposal of the applications for

interim maintenance for years on end. It would therefore be in

the interests of justice and fair play that maintenance is

awarded from the date of the application.”

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 21 of 22

39. In the present case, the question that arises for consideration is

whether the amount of ₹20,00,000/- admittedly received by the

respondent-wife from sale of the property, as noted above, ought to

be adjusted from the date of separation of the parties or from the date

on which the application seeking maintenance was filed. Upon

consideration, this Court is of the view that the amount received by

the respondent is liable to be adjusted against the interim

maintenance awarded to her; however, since the settled legal position

is that interim maintenance is to be granted from the date of filing of

the application seeking maintenance and not from the date of

separation of parties, as held in Rajnesh v. Neha (supra), the

adjustment of the said amount must also be computed from the date

of filing of the application and not from the date of separation of the

parties.

40. Accordingly, the amount of ₹20,00,000/- received by the

respondent-wife from the sale of the property shall be adjusted

against the interim maintenance amount of ₹25,000/- per month from

the date of filing of the application under the PWDV Act, i.e.,

20.10.2020, and not from the date of separation in April 2019. The

said amount shall thus stand adjusted for the period from 20.10.2020

till 20.06.2027.

41. Since the amount of interim maintenance of ₹25,000/- per

month is being adjusted against the sum of ₹20,00,000/- received by

the respondent-wife from the sale of the property – an amount which

CRL.M.C. 5097/2024 Page 22 of 22

she admittedly utilised for her personal expenses and for the

upbringing of the minor son „A‟, for the period from the date of filing

of the application till 20.06.2027 – the said amount of ₹25,000/- per

month also includes the maintenance component payable towards the

minor son „A‟ as well.

42. Accordingly, both the respondent-wife as well as the minor son

shall be entitled to receive consolidated interim maintenance of

₹25,000/- per month with effect from 21.06.2027 onwards.

43. Any amount paid and received by the respondent shall be

adjusted in

44. In above terms, the present petition, along with pending

application, is disposed of.

45. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall tantamount to an

expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

46. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.

DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

APRIL 04, 2026/A

TD/AP/RB