The assessment of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act should consider the income of the parties and their dependents.

JUDGMENT

H.P. Sandesh, J. - This matter is listed for admission.

This revision petition is filed to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl. A. No. 185/2020 and in consequence, the interim order dated 19.11.2020 passed on I.A. filed under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl. Misc. No. 42/2016 on the file of the III Additional I Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru.

2. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that the respondent herein has filed an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000/- per month. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, particularly, the format of affidavit of assets, income and expenditure, awarded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal is filed in Crl. A. No. 185/2020, wherein the format of affidavit of assets, income and expenditure is also filed before the Appellate Court. The Apex Court also, in the judgment in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha has issued the guidelines for awarding maintenance. The Appellate Court also, after considering the material on record, reduced the maintenance and ordered to pay interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Hence, the present revision petition is filed before this Court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month awarded as interim-maintenance is on the higher side and though he is getting salary of Rs. 82,000/-, he is having mother and also younger brother and they are depending on the income of this petitioner. She would also contend that both the Courts have committed an error in directing the petitioner to pay the interim-maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month. It is also her contention that the respondent is also self-earning and she is running a Beauty Parlour at Mysuru and owns a four storied house in N.R. Mohalla and having sufficient income to maintain herself and this fact has not been appreciated by both the Courts. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also on perusal of the material, it is not in dispute that the marriage has taken place on 16.02.2014 and according to the petitioner, she left the house in the month of December, 2014 itself. On perusal of the records, particularly Crl. Misc. No. 42/2016, it is seen that the same is filed in 2016. The Trial Court, considering the judgments of the Apex Court in Rohtash Singh vs. Smt. Ramendri reported in AIR 2000 SC 952 and the judgment in Shailaja and Another vs. Khobbanna reported in (2018) 12 SCC 199 and so also the judgment in Sunita Kachwaha and Others Vs. Anil Kachwaha reported in (2014) 16 SCC 715, taken note of self-earning income of the respondent-wife and considered the material available on record and also taken note of the avocation of the petitioner herein and comes to the conclusion that Rs. 20,000/- per month would be the just and reasonable interim-maintenance and the same has been modified by the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also, taken note of the monthly income of the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 82,000/- and taken note of loan repayment of Rs. 28,752/- and the fact that the respondent also not denied the fact that the petitioner has to maintain his mother and younger brother.

5. Having considered the material on record, the Appellate Court reassessed the monthly interim-maintenance and ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as against Rs. 20,000/- per month awarded by the Trial Court. When such reasoned order has been passed by the Appellate Court, having taken note of the income of the petitioner as Rs. 82,000/- per month and the dependency of the mother and younger brother and also repayment of loan amount of Rs. 28,752/-, directed the petitioner to pay a sum o