Mere Allegations Of Adultery Cannot Bar Interim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court
The petitioner contended that his wife was involved in a live-in relationship during the subsistence of their marriage.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has upheld an order directing the petitioner-husband to pay interim maintenance to his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), dismissing his contention that the wife is allegedly living in adultery.
A Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held, “at the stage of interim maintenance, and in revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the concurrent findings merely on the basis of such assertions, particularly when the assessment made by the learned Magistrate and affirmed by the learned Sessions Court is founded on material placed on record by the petitioner himself. Whether the said credit entries are attributable to income or otherwise is a matter which can be examined in detail during trial, but the same does not render the impugned orders perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference at this stage.”
Advocate Rajiv Khosla appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Roopenshu Pratap Singh appeared for the Respondent.
The petitioner contended that his wife was involved in a live-in relationship during the subsistence of their marriage and therefore could not be considered an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act.
The Court noted that while allegations of adultery had been raised, the photographs relied upon by the petitioner were yet to be proved in accordance with law. The High said, “Thus, any material or evidence relating to the conduct of the wife, including allegations of adultery, would undoubtedly be a relevant factor; however, the same would essentially be a matter requiring adjudication after evidence is led.”
The Court observed that the respondent-wife had alleged repeated physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse by the petitioner, supported by WhatsApp chats and a domestic incident report. Taking a prima facie view, the Court held that she satisfied the definition of an “aggrieved person” under the PWDV Act.
Regarding the petitioner’s claim that his assessed income had been overstated, the Court found that substantial credit entries in his bank account supported the income assessment by the Magistrate and the Sessions Court. The Court held that such questions could be examined during trial, but the interim maintenance award was neither excessive nor unreasonable.
The Court directed the Magistrate to expeditiously adjudicate the pending proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, preferably within one year. It also clarified, “in the event the learned Magistrate/Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, comes to the conclusion that the respondent-wife is not entitled to maintenance on account of living in adultery, the respondent-wife shall be liable to return the entire amount of interim maintenance received by her to the petitioner-husband, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, in accordance with law.”
Cause Title: Ajeet Jain v. Chhavi Jain, [2026:DHC:913]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Rajiv Khosla, Kashika Kapoor, Apoorva Khosla, Shreya Kumar Sharma, Surender Chauhan.
Respondent: Advocates Roopenshu Pratap Singh, Manish Sharma, Abhinav Bhatnagar, Aditya Taneja.