Wife Not Being Entitled To Monetary Maintenance Doesn’t Disentitle Her To Residence Order Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a criminal revision petition preferred by the petitioner-wife against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, SFTC (Sessions Court) in a Criminal Appeal wherein both the parties had assailed the order of the Trial Court in a case filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012 (PWDV Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act empowers the Court to direct the respondent to secure for the aggrieved woman the same level of alternate accommodation as enjoyed by her in the shared household, or to pay rent for the same. The husband also owes a statutory duty to provide residence for his minor child, who resides with the petitioner. The fact that the petitioner may not be entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of income does not, ipso facto, in the interregnum, disentitle her to a residence order under Section 19 of the PWDV Act.”

Advocate N. K. Sharma represented the Petitioner while APP Manoj Pant represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The parties were married in 2012 according to Sikh rites and ceremonies. A male child was born from the wedlock, who is presently in the custody of the petitioner-wife. In September 2020, the petitioner instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, alleging that she had been subjected to continuous harassment on account of dowry demands and verbal as well as emotional abuse by the second respondent husband. It was stated that she had been residing separately since July 22, 2020, along with her minor son in a rented accommodation. The Trial Court, after directing both parties to file their affidavits of income and assets, granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to the petitioner-wife for herself and the minor son, based on the admitted net income of the respondent husband of ₹67,000 per month.

The Trial Court also granted maintenance of ₹15,000 per month each to the petitioner-wife and the minor son, from the date of filing of the petition till its final disposal. Aggrieved thereby, both parties preferred appeals under Section 29 of the PWDV Act before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-wife and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent husband. While upholding the direction to pay interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month to the minor son, the Sessions Court set aside the direction granting interim maintenance to the petitioner-wife. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-wife preferred the revision petition.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the wife’s disclosures were inconsistent with her submission that she was unemployed and that whatever she earned was taken away by her husband. Her bank account statements also reflected electronic transfers, credit entries and investments, none of which were satisfactorily explained by her. As per the Bench, these circumstances, at the interim stage, provided a sufficient basis for the Trial Court to draw a prima facie inference that the petitioner had additional sources of income which she had not disclosed in her income affidavit, and thus, suppressed material facts relating to her financial capacity.

The Bench further noted that the Sessions Court, after independently examining the Trial Court record, affirmed these findings and held that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands. The Sessions Court also observed that her explanations for the credit entries in her bank accounts were merely oral and unsupported by documents. On a perusal of the record, the Bench noted that the same further reflected that the petitioner had received substantial amounts towards the maturity of LIC policies and recurring deposits upon the demise of both her parents. Her own explanation was that these amounts were reinvested for the benefit of herself and the child. “However, the fact remains that such reinvestments would reasonably generate returns in the form of interest, which constitute a source of income that was never disclosed. The respondent-husband has also placed on record the ITR Acknowledgement for AY 2025– 2026, of the petitioner-wife, showing an income of ₹2,04,730/-”, it added.

It was noticed that the petitioner holds an MBA degree, has prior work experience, and has been found to possess financial resources that were not disclosed by her. “It is trite that a party who suppresses material information regarding his or her income cannot claim maintenance on the premise that he or she is unable to maintain herself”, the Bench mentioned.

The Bench found merit in the submission of the petitioner regarding her right to secure adequate residence. The Bench thus disposed of the petition by holding the wife would be entitled to a sum of Rs 10,000 per month, as expenses towards securing a rented accommodation for herself and the minor child, which shall be paid by the respondent herein. “The directions qua payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the minor child, as directed by the learned Trial Court and upheld by the Sessions Court, have not been challenged before this Court, and the same are accordingly not interfered with”, it ordered.

Cause Title: A v. The State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11064)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates N. K. Sharma, Gaurav Bhandari, Harish Kumar

Respondent: APP Manoj Pant, Advocate Prateek

Click here to read/download Order