Delhi HC upholds Rs. 1 lakh monthly maintenance, ruling that a wife’s second marriage isn’t a valid ground to deny support under the Domestic Violence Act.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, does not differentiate between a first and a subsequent marriage when it comes to the entitlement of maintenance.
The judgment came in response to a husband’s plea challenging a family court’s April 2024 order directing him to pay an enhanced maintenance of Rs. 1 lakh to his wife, an increase from Rs. 33,000.
ALSO READ: In-Laws Can’t Evict Widow from Matrimonial Home, Rules Kerala High Court
Background of the Case
In the present case, the respondent, wife, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22.
Initially, the Mahila Court, on 24.02.2021, granted her interim maintenance of Rs. 12,000 per month. Later, this was enhanced to Rs. 33,000 by the Trial Court on 31.10.2023. Dissatisfied with this, the wife appealed, and the Additional Sessions Judge, by a common judgment dated 06.04.2024, further increased the maintenance to Rs. 1,00,000 per month and restrained the husband from disposing of his property without the court’s permission.
The petitioner, husband, challenged this order on several grounds, asserting that he suffers from Ankylosing Spondylitis, an incurable condition requiring treatment costing around Rs. 1.56 lakh monthly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
He claimed that the wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home, made no effort to return, and was an able-bodied person capable of earning. He also questioned the credibility of her claimed monthly expenses of Rs. 2 lakh, which included Rs. 50,000 for her two major sons, who are not entitled to maintenance under the Act.
He argued that even assuming his income to be Rs. 2 lakh per month, the maintenance awarded was excessive and unsupported by law, especially considering his declining income, lack of family support, and the costs of his daily and medical care.
Furthermore, he contended that the marriage was his second and that he had accepted the wife and her children in good faith. Denying allegations of domestic violence, he prayed for the maintenance amount to be set aside or reasonably reduced in light of his financial and medical circumstances.
ALSO READ: Women’s Day 2025 Special: Key Laws Protecting Women’s Rights in India
Respondent:
The respondent, wife, argued that she was forced to live in her ancestral home after enduring repeated mental, physical, financial, and emotional abuse by the petitioner husband. Following the death of her first husband in 1987, she agreed to marry the petitioner based on his promises of care and affection for her and her two sons.
However, after marriage, the petitioner allegedly reneged on his assurances by mistreating the children, denying them access to his belongings, and frequently asking them to leave the house. His excessive drinking and abusive behavior ultimately compelled the respondent to leave the matrimonial home and seek maintenance.
The respondent also accused the petitioner of misrepresenting his financial situation, stating that, contrary to his claims, he had an average annual income exceeding Rs. 32 lakhs, owned multiple properties, held investments in shares and mutual funds, and possessed 200 acres of agricultural land generating over Rs. 15 lakhs per month.
It was further alleged that during the proceedings, he transferred properties to his sister without consideration to evade maintenance liabilities, leading the Trial Court to restrain him from alienating assets. The counsel submitted that the impugned order awarding Rs. 1 lakh in monthly maintenance was based on credible financial records, affidavits, and the parties’ lifestyle, and no legal error could be found in it. Therefore, the order deserved to be upheld as just, reasonable, and grounded in evidence.
Court’s Observation
The Court, after hearing both parties and reviewing the records, dismissed the husband’s petition challenging the enhanced maintenance order.
The Court noted that the husband had not produced any medical documents to substantiate his health-related expenses. His own affidavit showed monthly personal expenses of Rs. 1.56 lakhs, which included costs for domestic staff, entertainment, and travel, reflecting a comfortable lifestyle inconsistent with his claimed financial distress.
Moreover, his income tax returns revealed an annual income of Rs. 28 lakhs in 2020–21 and Rs. 36 lakhs in 2021–22. The Court found no basis to deny maintenance on the ground that the wife was capable of earning, as she was only making Rs. 12,000 per month and relied on loans to meet her expenses.
The Court also addressed concerns about the husband’s attempts to alienate property during the case and upheld the direction that he must not transfer assets without court approval.
Regarding the husband’s claim that the wife’s second marriage and her children from a previous marriage disqualified her from maintenance, the Court held that,
“The Domestic Violence Act makes no distinction between a first and subsequent marriage when it comes to entitlement to maintenance.”
Since the major sons were not dependent, they were rightly excluded from maintenance. Concluding that the trial court’s decision was fair, well-reasoned, and supported by evidence, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the order directing the husband to pay Rs. 1 lakh monthly maintenance.
Case Title: RAKESH BHATARA Versus SAKSHI BHATARA
CRL.REV.P. 622/2024 & CRL.M.A. 14402/2024
READ JUDGMENT HERE
Click Here to Read More Reports on Domestic Violence Act, 2005
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
