The Complainant had sought interim maintenance of ₹60,000/- per month under Section 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. After considering the pleadings and income affidavits of both parties, the Ld. Court dismissed the application for interim maintenance.
The Court, inter alia, observed that it has been correctly pointed out that;
- The Complainant was herself employed as a Systems Engineer with Tata Consultancy Services and earning approximately ₹63,863/- per month.
- The income affidavit also disclosed her FD, PPF and mutual fund investments.
- The mere difference between the incomes of the parties does not, by itself, create an entitlement to maintenance.
- The object of maintenance is not to equalise the income of the wife with that of the husband, but to ensure that a party does not suffer due to paucity of means during matrimonial proceedings.
- In the facts before the Court, the Complainant had not established such paucity of means.
The Court accordingly dismissed the application under Section 23 of the DV Act, without awarding any maintenance.