Domestic Violence Case Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because Wife Failed To Provide Exact Date And Time Of Alleged Tortures : Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court observed that merely because the wife failed to provide the exact date and time of the alleged tortures does not tantamount to mean that the domestic violence case of the wife is without any basis.

A petition was filed by the wife challenging the setting aside of the order granting maintenance of Rs. 4,000/- per month each to the wife and her minor child.

The Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, "It is pertinent to note that the case of the petitioner was brushed aside on the ground that the petitioner had failed to provide the exact date and manner of physical cruelty/harassment. However, merely because the petitioner failed to provide the exact date and time of the alleged tortures does not tantamount to mean that the case of the petitioner is without any basis."

Advocate Jai Bansal represented the Petitioner, while Advocates Raj Kumar and Hitesh Kumar represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act on the grounds that she has been subject to to torture at the hands of her husband in relation to demand of dowry. It was also contended that the wife was subjected to beatings and also asked to bring a sum of ₹50,000/- for the marriage of the sister-in-law. It was also the case of the wife that on account of the inability to fulfil the said demand, she was ousted from her matrimonial home in 2012.

The Magistrate noted that the husband was negligent in not maintaining his wife and a minor child, thus, awarded maintenance for a sum of ₹4,000/- each to the wife and their minor child.

However, the Additional Session Judge set aside the said order as the wife failed to substantiate her allegations in relation to demand of dowry or any mental or physical harassment against the husband.

Court's Analysis

The Delhi High Court noted that the DV Act was enacted with a view to provide effective protection to the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. Thus, a very expansive definition has was accorded to the term ‘domestic violence’

“An examination of Section 3 of the DV Act makes it manifest that the term ‘domestic violence’ includes economic abuse”, the Court said.

After analysis the facts of the case, the Court highlighted that the case of the wife was brushed aside on the ground that the petitioner had failed to provide the exact date and manner of physical cruelty/harassment.

“However, merely because the petitioner failed to provide the exact date and time of the alleged tortures does not tantamount to mean that the case of the petitioner is without any basis”, the Court added.

Consequently, the Court opined that the wife was entitled to receive compensation on account of ‘economic abuse’.

The Bench observed that given that the husband has not stated that any family member is dependent on him and considering that the income of the husband has been assessed as ₹20,000/-, maintenance for a sum of ₹4,000/- per month to the petitioner and the minor child is not unreasonable.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed.

Cause Title: X V. State & Anr (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6114)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Jai Bansal and Abhishek Verma,

Respondents: Advocate Raj Kumar, APP for the State; Advocates Hitesh Kumar, Suraj Rawat, Sapna & Vikas Sharma for R2

Click here to read/download Judgment