Delhi HC Rejects ‘Nil Income’ Claim, Upholds ₹50,000 Interim Maintenance for Wife in Domestic Violence Case [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a revision petition filed by a husband (DK) challenging the grant of ₹50,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife (AY) in a complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).

The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on December 10, 2025, affirmed the orders of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court. The petitioner-husband had assailed the order dated January 8, 2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which upheld the Trial Court’s interim maintenance order dated July 20, 2024.

The petitioner argued that he was unemployed and that the respondent-wife had deliberately suppressed her true financial capacity, claiming that she was earning significantly, owned multiple properties, and had substantial investments. However, the Court rejected the husband’s plea of having “nil” income, noting that his own Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2019–2020 reflected a gross income of ₹9,12,586/- and that his bank statements showed recurring transactions through entities such as “ONE97 Communications L/Noida” and “GRIP INVEST MITCON.” Furthermore, photographs on record depicted the petitioner leading a lifestyle “wholly inconsistent with the financial hardship claimed by him, which clearly contradicts his plea of unemployment.”

The Court clarified the legal position regarding a wife’s assets and educational qualifications. It held that the husband’s reliance on the wife’s inherited or gifted assets to deny maintenance was “legally untenable.” The Court observed: “The stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim for maintenance.” Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judgment stated that “the mere fact that the wife is educated or has some source of income does not, by itself, disentitle her from seeking maintenance.” What is relevant is whether the wife’s actual income, if any, “is sufficient to sustain herself in a manner befitting the status and lifestyle she was accustomed to during the marriage.”

Considering the admitted fact that the parties resided in a high-end farmhouse with a monthly rent of ₹1,25,000/- immediately after marriage, the Court noted the affluent lifestyle of the couple. The Court concluded that the Trial Court had “rightly recorded that the respondent-wife is presently unemployed and financially dependent.” Finding no infirmity or illegality in the previous orders, the High Court held that the quantum of ₹50,000/- per month awarded as interim maintenance is “reasonable, just, and commensurate with the needs of the respondent-wife and the financial capacity of the petitioner.”

The Court also clarified that the awarded amount shall include any expenses towards the residence of the respondent-wife.

Case Details:

Case Name: DK v. AY

Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 51/2025; CRL.M.A. 3555/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29426/2025

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Judgment Pronounced On: 10.12.2025

Advocates for Petitioner-Husband: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Janvi Vohra, Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Ms. Veenu Singh, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, and Ms. Aamya

Advocate for Respondent-Wife: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha

[Read Judgment]