DV Act | Unproven Allegations Of Illicit Relationship No Ground To Deny Interim Maintenance To Wife: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the wife cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial.

Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta dismissed a husband's plea against a trial court order directing him to pay Rs. 6000 per month to the wife towards rent, alongwith monthly interim maintenance of Rs.11,460 and Rs.9,800 towards the expenditure of both minor daughters.

The husband also sought quashing of the complaint case filed against him by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act.

Dismissing the plea, the court said that there were no cogent reasons to interfere with the impugned order of maintenance passed by the trial court.

The court observed that on the face of record, the wife was left in lurch by the husband as he disposed the house properties and shifted to a rented accommodation, without making any provision for maintenance for her and the children.

The court said that prima facie, the acts and conduct of the husband constitute “domestic violence” as the wife was deprived of the economic and financial resources to which she was entitled under law.

“Also disposal of the household effects to which respondent had an interest and was entitled to use by virtue of domestic relationship brings the case within the ambit of „economic abuse‟ as provided in Section 3 of DV Act,” the court said.

Furthermore, Justice Mendiratta said that allegations of illicit relationship and FIR under the provisions of Immoral Trafficking Act, as alleged by the husband, was belatedly lodged by him after the proceedings were initiated by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act.

“The respondent cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the DV Act merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial,” the court said.

It added that on the face of record, the contentions raised by the husband for quashing of the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act were without any merit.

“Even on the point of maintenance, learned MM had duly noted the fact that monthly income of the petitioner is about Rs.57,300/- and the petitioner had also a bank balance of Rs.32,73,693/- out of which the loan obtained by the petitioner could be repaid. Further after taking into consideration the income and assets affidavit, the learned trial court had noticed that the respondent does not have any source of income for maintenance for herself and for her daughters,” the court said.

Title: A v. B

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38

Click Here To Read Order