Interim maintenance under the DV Act must consider both parties' financial circumstances and living arrangements, ensuring it does not penalize the other spouse.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to assail order dated 24.05.2024, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2023, whereby order dated 06.07.2023, granting interim maintenance to the respondent herein, under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, Act, 2005 (for short “DV Act”), passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, H.P., in case No. 3862 of 2022, has been affirmed.

2. Respondent (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘wife’) has approached the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu by filing a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act against petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘husband’), seeking protection order and monitory reliefs under Sections 18 and 20 of the Act, ibid. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, wife also preferred an application under Section 23(1) of D.V. Act, seeking interim maintenance @ Rs. 50,000/-per month along with litigation expenses of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

3. It was averred in the application that marriage between the parties was solemnized on 16.02.1997 as per Hindu rites and customs. Two sons, namely, Jai Aditya and Dhruv Ambar were born out of the wedlock. The wife was kept nicely by husband till 2005 and thereafter she was tortured and maltreated mentally, physically and emotionally. It was alleged that the husband had continuously been committing acts of domestic violence against wife and had not been maintaining her and the sons. As per wife, though she was in government job but the same was under New Pension Scheme. The husband was alleged to be serving as Class-1 Officer having monthly salary of more than Rs. 1,50,000/-. He was also alleged to be having sufficient landed property.

4. The husband contested the application of the wife by denying the allegations of torture, maltreatment and domestic violence. It was alleged that the wife is a well-paid State Government employee and has been living separately since 13.02.2021. The husband is stated to have retired getting pension and thus maintaining himself along with his two sons within the limited means. He is also stated to be repaying the outstanding house loan. As per husband, the wife was earning monthly salary of approximately Rs.70,000/-,whereas he has quantified his basic pension at Rs.63,300/-and after reduction of commuted value he is stated to be getting Rs. 37,980/- plus dearness allowance as pension. He has also denied to be the owner of landed property.

5. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, H.P. allowed the application of the wife and granted interim maintenance of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the date of the filing of application. The order of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kullu, H.P., has been affirmed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, vide impugned order passed in appeal filed by the husband under Section 29 of the DV Act.

6. The wife has chosen not to appear before this Court despite service of notice.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.

8. Learned Trial Court has noted in its order that both the parties had filed their respective affidavits of assets and liabilities. On the basis of information provided in the affidavits, the salary of wife has been found to be Rs. 67,516/-per month. The husband has been found to be retired State Administrative Service Officer drawing pension of around Rs. 80,000/-.

9. Learned Appellate Court has als