Findings Of Cruelty Against Wife In Divorce Case No Basis To Deny Her Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the findings of cruelty against a wife in the divorce proceedings by itself cannot be a basis to deny her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Justice Amit Bansal also observed that a revision petition would lie to the High Court against an order passed by the Sessions Court in appeal under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Section 29 states that “There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.”

The court made the observations while dealing with a wife's plea against a sessions judge order setting aside a lower court order which directed the husband to pay Rs.1 lakh per month towards maintenance as well as compensation to her.

The parties got married in 1991 and a child was born from the wedlock same year. A complaint was filed by the wife in 2009 against the husband under Domestic Violence Act. 

They were referred to mediation and a settlement agreement was entered into between them. However, the wife alleged that the husband failed to comply with the terms of settlement.

The metropolitan magistrate's order, which held that the wife had suffered 'domestic violence' at the instance of the husband, was challenged by him before the sessions court.

Vide the impugned order, the sessions court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for a de novo trial and did not fix any interim maintenance to be paid to her.

Justice Bansal held that the revision petition filed by the wife was maintainable. The court agreed with the ruling of Allahabad High Court in Dinesh Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. (2016) wherein it was held that a revision to the High Court is maintainable against an order passed by the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Furthermore, the court said that there was no justification at all for the sessions court to remand the case back to the Trial Court and that the impugned order was completely cryptic and without giving any reasons justifying the remand.

“Even while remanding the matter back to the Trial Court, the Appellate Court did not deem it appropriate to fix an amount towards interim maintenance. The intention of the DV Act is to provide immediate succour to the aggrieved wife, especially when civil remedies towards maintenance are drastically delayed,” the court said.

Accordingly, Justice Bansal directed the Husband to pay a monthly sum of Rs.50,000 as interim maintenance to the wife from December 16, 2009, when the complaint was filed by her, till November 01, 2019, when the impugned judgment was passed by the sessions court.

“The sum of Rs.10,00,000/- already paid by the Husband to the Wife pursuant to the orders of this Court shall be deducted from the aforesaid amount,” the court said.

It added that the appeal shall be decided on the basis of the material on record and the parties wi be at liberty to lead additional evidence, in view of any change in circumstances after 2019-20.

Counsel for Petitioner: Ms.Shirin Khajuria, Mr.Subrat Deb, Mr.Ranjeet Mishra, Mr.Poulomi Barik, and Mr.Nayan Gupta Advocates

Counsel for Respondents: Ms.Deepika V. Marwaha, Senior Advocate with Ms.Raunika Johar and Mr.Faiz Khan, Advocates

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75

Click Here To Read/Download Order