Introduction
In the present case, the judgement of 17 July 2025, by the Delhi HC affirmed that the Right of women under the Domestic Violence Act 2005 is an absolute right and it is not subject to any condition, such as whether she was married for the first time or the second time. The court analyzed the legislative obligation of the husband to extend financial assistance to his wife, side-stepping the husband’s argument that the woman’s second marriage disqualified her from getting maintenance.
Background
The case originated in a revision petition by a husband against an order of a trial court commanding him to pay ₹1,00,000 monthly as maintenance to his wife. He contended that:
The wife was previously married.
She had children from a previous marriage.
He could not make the payment as he was in poor medical and financial condition.
The case came up for hearing before Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, who rejected the husband’s appeal and confirmed the maintenance order made by the trial court.
Key points
- No bar on maintenance: The court held that the Domestic Violence Act does not differentiate between first or second marriages for maintenance. A wife has a right or entitlement to maintenance regardless of marital history.
- Voluntary Marriage Implies Responsibility: The husband voluntarily wedded the lady, knowing her history and cannot subsequently use the same as a shield to escape his financial commitment.
- Medical and Financial Assertions Unsubstantiated: The husband’s assertion of spending ₹1.56 lakh a month on medical bills was not supported by facts. The court further held that despite the income level status, ITR showed annual incomes of 28-36 lakhs rupees, and his lifestyle indicated a high spending capacity.
- Attempt to Alienate Property: To avoid maintenance, the husband transfers assets to relatives to avoid liability. The court found merit in this claim and upheld the trial court’s order of restraining the sale of property without permission.
- Maintenance as a Right: The right to maintenance is only for the wife, not the adult child. Furthermore, the Right to maintenance is absolute, even if the wife can work; lacking gainful employment makes her eligible for maintenance. The wife deserves the same standard of living as her husband.
Recent Development
Courts are increasingly widening definitions of the DV Act to provide financial security and protection of dignity to women in diverse marital situations.
The judiciary is asserting lifestyle equality and probing efforts by husbands to suppress income or disown assets.
Second marriages, live-in relationships, and mixed families are increasingly being recognised in maintenance orders.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision reaffirms that a woman’s right to maintenance under the DV Act is rooted in statutory protection and marital obligation, regardless of her marital background. The court in this case took a robust stance against the defendants, emphasising that legal obligations in a marriage cannot be diluted based on personal discomfort or retrospective justification. The judgment underlines that financial dignity and legal equality must prevail in domestic relationships.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. PrimeLegall falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY AYUSHI TRIVEDI
