Revisional interference with interim maintenance is narrow, and concurrent maintenance orders were left undisturbed absent patent illegality.

Revisional interference with concurrent interim maintenance orders under the Domestic Violence Act is limited to patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, and none was shown here. The maintenance order had already been upheld in appeal, and the later refusal to modify it was also affirmed, so the revision court could not reopen the same challenge. The wife's limited salary receipt did not establish self-sufficiency or negate the need for support, and the alleged concealment of facts was insufficient to justify setting aside or varying the order. The maintenance orders of the courts below were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision court should interfere with concurrent orders granting and refusing to modify interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. (ii) Whether the alleged salary payment and asserted concealment of facts justified setting aside or modifying the maintenance order.

Issue (i): Whether the revision court should interfere with concurrent orders granting and refusing to modify interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.

Analysis: The order granting interim maintenance had already been upheld in appeal, and the later order refusing modification had also been affirmed. The scope of interference in revision is narrow and is confined to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity. On the facts, the concurrent orders did not disclose any such infirmity.

Conclusion: The revision court declined to interfere with the concurrent maintenance orders.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged salary payment and asserted concealment of facts justified setting aside or modifying the maintenance order.

Analysis: The salary received by the wife for a limited period did not, by itself, establish that she could maintain the same standard of living without support from the husband. The earlier challenge to the maintenance order had already been rejected, and it was not open to reopen that order in revision. The alleged concealment and other factual contentions were not found sufficient to warrant interference; the broader matrimonial claims could be pursued in the pending matrimonial proceedings.

Conclusion: The alleged salary payment and concealment did not justify setting aside or modifying the maintenance order.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed, and the maintenance orders of the courts below were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court will not interfere with concurrent maintenance orders absent perversity or patent illegality, and an order already upheld in appeal cannot be reopened in revision on the same challenge.

---