Interim maintenance can be re-evaluated based on demonstrated changes in financial circumstances without exhaustive trials.

ORDER :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

CRL.M.A. 21913/2025 (seeking leave to amend the petition

1. Since notice has not been issued and the Petitioner seeks to amend the petition at the initial stage, for the reasons disclosed in the application, the same is allowed and the amended petition is taken on record.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 308/2025 & CRL.M.A. 19579/2025 (Stay)

3. The present revision petition under Sections 438, 442 read with 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [“ BNSS ”] (corresponding to Sections 397, 401 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[“CrPC”]) is directed against judgment dated 13^th May, 2025, passed by ASJ-02, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, in C.A. No. 64/2024 titled Swati Saista v. Dhirendra Kumar. By the impugned judgment, the Appellate Court upheld the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, South West District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 1582/2019, whereby the interim maintenance previously fixed at INR 1,00,000/- per month in favour of the Petitioner was reduced to INR 15,000/- per month.

Factual Matrix

4. The facts relevant to the present controversy, as gathered from the record, are summarised below:

4.1. The Petitioner/Complainant is the wife of the Respondent. The marriage between them was solemnized on 8^th July, 2010, as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. They have a son, born on 16^th September, 2011, who is currently in the Respondent’s custody. The Petitioner alleges that she was subjected to cruelty and domestic violence during the marriage, which ultimately led to separation. The Respondent disputes this narrative and asserts, instead, that the Petitioner has long suffered from psychiatric illness since her college years, a fact allegedly suppressed at the time of marriage. He further contends that, being technically qualified, the Petitioner is capable of sustaining herself and therefore not entitled to claim maintenance.

4.2. In this background, the Petitioner instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 11^th January, 2019, seeking inter alia a monthly maintenance of INR 3,38,500/- for herself and the minor son. Along with the complaint, an application under Section 23 of the Act was also filed seeking ex parte ad interim reliefs.

4.3. On 7^th September, 2020, the Mahila Court, in Complaint Case No. 1582/2019 titled Swati Saista v. Dhirendra Kumar, while adjudicating the Petitioner’s application for interim maintenance confined its determination to the Petitioner’s entitlement alone, since the minor child was admittedly in the custody of the Respondent. Recognising the statutory duty of a husband to maintain his wife, particularly in the absence of independent income, and estimating the Petitioner’s earning capacity to be in the range of INR 4-5 lakhs per annum, the Court directed the Respondent to pay monthly interim maintenance of INR 1,00,000/- to the Petitioner, with effect from the date of institution of the complaint, until further orders.

4.4. Aggrieved by this order, both parties filed cross-appeals – C.A. 188/2020 and C.A. 169/2020, respectively. These were disposed of by a common order dated 1^st October, 2021, passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi. While affirming the general reasoning of the Mahila Court, the Appellate Court directed that the interim maintenance be limited to a period of one year, within which the Petitioner was expected to secure employment. It further directed the Mahi