Family Dispute · 2 min read · 2 min 30 sec listen · Published 15 September 2026

Maintenance in DV Case: What the Court Actually Considers

Understand how courts fix maintenance in a DV case, why a ₹1 crore compensation claim and ₹2 lakh monthly demand get tested against both spouses' incomes.

Maintenance in DV Case: What the Court Actually Considers
Add as a preferred source on GoogleSee this site more often in Google’s Top Stories.
One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.

Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.

TL;DR: A claim for maintenance in a DV case is not a bill you owe as claimed. Courts fix maintenance after looking at both spouses' incomes, assets and liabilities, so a demand of ₹2 lakh a month or ₹1 crore in one-time compensation is usually a starting position, not a likely order. Your best material is often the other side's own admissions about what she earns.

Karan Malhotra walked into the Chamber of Advocate Sudhir Rao carrying a thick folder and a question he had already asked three other people. Inside the folder was a certified copy of a chargesheet. His wife, Shreya, had filed the case against him. In that same chargesheet, in her own statement, she had recorded that she used to earn ₹50 lakh a year and had received ₹11 lakh as severance when she left her job.

She went back to work about two years ago. She bills through a GST registration now and brings in somewhere between ₹3 lakh and ₹5 lakh a month. She drives a car worth ₹30 to 35 lakh. The flat they shared in Pune still has its EMIs paid by him, every month, on time.

Three years earlier there had been an incident at home. The building CCTV caught it. He filed nothing for a long time. Then came the DV application: ₹2 lakh a month for the child, and ₹1 crore as one-time compensation.

Earlier consultations had gone nowhere useful. What changed the approach was reading the DV petition against the chargesheet, because she had herself asked the court to rely on that chargesheet material. Interim maintenance was fixed with reference to both disclosed incomes rather than the sum claimed, and Advocate Sudhir Rao's familiarity with matrimonial criminal practice shaped how that contradiction was placed on record.

Key Facts of the Case