Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act Is Not Tethered On Victim’s Inability To Maintain Herself: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing a Petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC, challenging the judgment by the Additional Sessions Judge who dismissed the appeal against the Trial Court's order, which had directed Petitioner No.1 to pay ₹15,000 per month as interim maintenance and ₹10,000 per month as rent to Respondent No.2 from the date of filing of the case until its disposal.

The bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “This Court is in agreement with the observation of the learned Trial Court that unlike Section 125 of the CrPC, maintenance under the DV Act is not tethered on the inability of the wife/ victim to maintain herself. Moreover, prima facie, in the absence of cogent proof of Respondent No.2 being gainfully employed or earning a sufficient income to maintain herself, the bald allegation that Respondent No.2 is earning through private tuitions, without any documentary proof, does not disentitle her from getting an award of interim maintenance.”

Advocate Nipun Joshi appeared for the Appellant and APP Pradeep Gahalot appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The parties were admittedly spouses who had shared a domestic household. The trial Court on perusal of the complaint and the Domestic Incident Report noted that prima facie the Respondent No.2 was a victim of domestic violence and entitled to monetary compensation under the DV Act.

The Court noted, “Section 23 of the DV Act empowers the Magistrate to grant interim orders if the application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing an act of domestic violence, has committed an act of domestic violence or may commit an act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person. Any woman who prima facie shows that she has suffered domestic violence at the hands of her spouse/ partner, is entitled for interim relief.”

The Court mentioned the decision in Kiran Tomar v. State of U.P. 2022 SCC OnLine SC and observed, “ …there is a tendency to downplay the income when a person is embroiled in a matrimonial dispute and that even income tax returns do not necessarily provide an accurate reflection of the actual income in such cases.”

The Court further said, “Litigants cannot be allowed to take the Courts for granted. Courts are not expected to keep cases pending at end for litigants who are not diligent to pursue the proceedings instituted by them.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the present Petition.

Cause Title: Sudhanshu Jaggi v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6907)

Appearance: