In the present case, the petitioner was turned out of her house on account of failure to bring enough dowry and to give a car. The respondent has filed proceedings for divorce which are pending. The petitioner filed the subject petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005. The trial court had assessed the income of the respondent to be Rs. 30,000 and thereby fixed the maintenance at Rs. 10,000. The same was confirmed by the appellate court which found no infirmity in the order. Therefore, the petitioner sought enhancement of the maintenance to Rs. 40,000 by arguing that the respondent is engaged in several businesses and has a turnover of approximately Rs. One Crore and employs nearly 10 persons. Further, she contended that the daughter of the parties has an eye ailment for which she requires regular treatment and expense of approximately Rs. 5000/- per month is spent on her education and upbringing.

Justice Sachdeva noted that the trial court as well as the appellate court have found that the respondent has not been truthful in his disclosure. He also cited Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353 wherein the apex court had declared that section 125 was conceived to ameliorate the agony, anguish, financial suffering of a woman who left her matrimonial home for the reasons provided in the provision so that some suitable arrangements can be made by the court and she can sustain herself and also her children if they are with her.

The court enhanced the interim maintenance to Rs. 30,000 per month and directed the respondent to clear the entire arrears of maintenance in three equal monthly installments. It also clarified that the above assessment is prima facie and would be subject to final orders passed by the trial court after parties have led their evidence