JK High Court Upholds Rs 12,000 Interim Maintenance for Domestic Violence Survivor, Dismisses Husband’s Plea

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has upheld a lower court’s interim maintenance order directing a police constable to pay Rs 12,000 per month to his estranged wife under the Domestic Violence Act, dismissing his plea challenging the quantum of the award as excessive and arbitrary.

Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul dismissed the petition filed by Naveed Bashir Wani, who had approached the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking to set aside concurrent orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal on May 6, 2024, and subsequently upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on February 25, 2025. The orders were passed in response to a petition filed by his wife, Varqa Bashir, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The wife, in her complaint, had alleged repeated acts of physical and mental abuse, dowry demands, and neglect of medical needs by her husband and in-laws since her marriage in September 2022. Photographic evidence and affidavits were submitted along with the petition. She also sought an increase in interim relief to Rs 50,000 and Rs 30,000 as rental support, citing unsafe conditions at the matrimonial home and health issues.

The Trial Court found a prima facie case of domestic violence and awarded interim maintenance of Rs 12,000, including medical expenses. It relied on a salary slip produced by the respondent, showing his gross income as Rs 43,874 and net pay as Rs 39,782, and held that repayment of a personal loan could not be a valid reason to deny maintenance. The court rejected claims that the petitioner earned Rs 90,000 per month or had other substantial sources of income, citing lack of proof.

The petitioner, a constable in the Jammu and Kashmir Police Department, challenged this order, arguing that his actual salary was just Rs 34,000 per month, and he had responsibilities towards his parents and siblings. He claimed that the complaint lacked specific dates or police reports substantiating allegations of violence and that the maintenance amount was fixed without proper appreciation of his financial position.

The Appellate Court, however, found no error in the Trial Court’s approach. It cited Supreme Court rulings including Probha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi (2022) and Rajnesh vs. Neha (2020) to reaffirm that an aggrieved wife is entitled to monetary relief under the DV Act even in the absence of a Domestic Incident Report. The court emphasized that the respondent-wife could not be left to suffer financially merely because the husband claimed to have other liabilities.

The High Court concurred with the findings of both lower courts, observing that the respondent cannot be forced to return to her matrimonial home given her apprehensions, and that she was entitled to a safe and secure living arrangement. It added that although she had educational qualifications, she was undergoing medical treatment and was dependent on the petitioner.

Dismissing the petition, the court held that the interim maintenance amount of Rs 12,000 was neither arbitrary nor unjustified, given the financial disclosures on record. It noted that the trial court had struck a balance between the needs of the wife and the earning capacity of the husband.

The High Court reiterated that the purpose of interim maintenance is to prevent destitution and ensure dignity and survival, and that financial liabilities or personal loans cannot override the statutory obligation of a husband to support his wife.