Delhi High Court upholds maintenance order under Domestic Violence Act [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant judgment upholding a maintenance order granted to a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

Justice Amit Mahajan, while dismissing a revision petition filed by the husband and his family, affirmed the lower courts’ orders directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance to his wife.

The court noted that the trial court had ordered the husband to pay Rs. 15,000 per month as interim maintenance and an additional Rs. 10,000 per month as rent for alternative accommodation for the wife. This order was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge on appeal.

Addressing the applicability of maintenance under the DV Act, the court observed:
“Unlike Section 125 of the CrPC, maintenance under the DV Act is not tethered to the inability of the wife/victim to maintain herself.”

The court rejected the husband’s claims of reduced income, stating:
“It is trite law that the Courts in such circumstances are permitted to make some guesswork and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning. For the said purpose, the status and lifestyle of the parties can be considered.”

On allegations of domestic violence, the court held:
“The learned ASJ has also noted that there are images on record showing injury marks on the body of Respondent No.2. As rightly noted by the learned ASJ, the defenses and allegations in this regard can only be conclusively determined after the parties have led their evidence.”

While dismissing the revision petition, the court directed the trial court to pass the final maintenance order after considering evidence, uninfluenced by observations in the impugned judgment or the High Court’s order.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the interim maintenance awarded to the wife under the DV Act, emphasizing that such maintenance is not contingent on the wife’s inability to support herself, unlike maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.

[Read Judgment]