Case Name: DK vs. AY (Names are kept anonymous)
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 51/2025, CRL.M.A. 3555/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29426/2025
Date: 10 December 2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Quorum: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Facts
The present case is a revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband, challenging the order dated January 8, 2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. Earlier, the Sessions Court had already dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s order, awarding an interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month to the respondent-wife, despite his allegations of a poor financial status compared to his wife.
The genesis of the case was the suit filed by the respondent alleging continuous physical, verbal, and economic abuse. While the petitioner-husband claimed to be unemployed and holding the position of the Telephone Advisory Committee, the wife discovered the sexual activities of the petitioner in the year 2019. Subsequently, when they were shifted to another abode, the wife was asked to pay all the expenses of the lease despite it being executed in the name of the petitioner’s mother. During this period, she was tortured by her mother-in-law and her husband, and thus, filed a suit under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act). The sessions court had granted her an interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000, and this was challenged by the petitioner.
Issues
- Whether the interim maintenance of ₹50,000/- awarded by the Trial Court is justified?
- Whether the wife’s educational qualification and independent assets disqualify her from claiming interim maintenance?
Legal Provisions
- Section 12 of the PWDV Act
This section deals with the application to the Magistrate by an aggrieved person, a protection officer, or any other member representing the aggrieved person for the claim of relief(s) specified under the Act. - Section 19 of the PWDV Act
This section empowers the magistrate to pass an order of residence ensuring the women get the stay that she used to have while at the matrimonial house. - Section 23 of the PWDV Act
This section authorised the magistrate to grant an interim order and an ex parte order if required. - Section 29 of the PWDV Act
This section gives the aggressor the right to appeal the decision of the magistrate’s court to the court of sessions within 30 days from the date of the order served to the aggrieved person or the respondent, whichever is later.
Arguments
Petitioner
The petitioner argues that he was unemployed at the the marriage. He only held an honorary position in the Telephone Advisory Committee, which was known to the respondent at the time of marriage. He also compares their income. He states the income of the respondent was Rs 9,12,586, which is higher than that of the petitioner, as he is unemployed. He also argues that the respondent is highly qualified and thus prays the court to set aside the interim order of maintenance.
Respondents
The wife argued that the husband, despite having sufficient means of livelihood, failed to perform his marital obligations. She also alleges that the husband possesses far more assets than he disclosed in his income affidavits and tax returns. She also includes the custody of jewellery worth Rs. 20,00,000 being held by the husband. Being unemployed, the wife lacks a source of fixed or recurring income and thus prays to uphold the interim order of the magistrate.
Analysis
The court, after listening to both sides, found the misinformation of nil income given by the husband. His lifestyle, including living in a farmhouse with a rent of ₹1.25 lakhs, contradicted his plea of financial hardship. The court, after relying on the husband’s lifestyle, found him to be competent to give maintenance. The court also relied on cases like Rajnesh v. Neha [(2021) 2 SCC 324], and Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [(2017) 15 SCC 801] to highlight the right of a woman to claim maintenance irrespective of her educational qualification and potential to work unless she has a stable, actual income sufficient to maintain herself.
Judgement
The court rejected the plea of the petitioner and asked him to pay Rs 50,000 as maintenance to the wife.
Conclusion
The Court upheld the ₹50,000/- monthly maintenance as reasonable and just, noting that the husband failed to prove his inability to pay for the wife’s maintenance. However, the observations were confined to interim maintenance and would not prejudice the final trial.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHARANYA M
