Delhi High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-husband for setting aside the judgment dated 6-4-2024 (impugned judgment), wherein the Additional Sessions Judge had directed payment of Rs. 1 lakh per month as maintenance, a Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., while upholding the impugned judgment, had stated that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) did not distinguish between first and subsequent marriage for purposes of entitlement to maintenance.
Background
The wife (respondent) had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, seeking reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act. The Mahila Court had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 12,000 per month as maintenance to the respondent. The Trial Court had enhanced the quantum of maintenance to Rs. 33,000 per month which had been further increased to Rs. 1,00,000 per month by the Additional Sessions Judge through the impugned judgment.
In the instant appeal, the petitioner had submitted that that he was undergoing treatment for a chronic and incurable disease called Ankylosing Spondylitis because of which he spent around Rs 1.56 lakhs out of his monthly income of Rs 2 lakhs in daily and medical needs. Considering this, it would be grossly disproportionate and unsustainable in law to force the petitioner to pay Rs 1 lakh as maintenance every month.
Per contra, the respondent had submitted that she was a mother of two sons and had been approached by the petitioner for marriage after the death of her first husband. She contended that the petitioner subjected her to mental, physical, financial and emotional abuse because of which she shifted to her ancestral home. The respondent further contended that the petitioner, though initially had claimed to adopt the children, had started mistreating and abusing the children after their wedding. She also contended that the petitioner had misrepresented his financial status and was actually generating over Rs 15 lakhs per month from investments in multiple mutual funds and shares as well as ownership of several properties and agricultural land and was therefore more than capable of paying Rs 1 lakh per month as maintenance.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the even though the petitioner had claimed to be undergoing treatment for Ankylosing Spondylitis, he had not attached any records, bills or medical reports to support his claim.
The Court further noted that the petitioner was maintaining a high standard of living, having employed a driver, cook, caretaker and maid. He was clearly living a comfortable lifestyle and had the financial capability to pay maintenance. Furthermore, even though the respondent was able-bodied and earning, her income affidavit revealed that she was earning a meagre amount of Rs 12,000 per month while the petitioner led a lavish and comfortable lifestyle.
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s submission that the respondent’s marriage with him was her second and that she had children from her previous marriage because of which she would not be entitled to maintenance, was wholly misconceived. The Court stated that the DV Act did not distinguish between first or subsequent marriage for purpose of entitlement to maintenance.
Therefore, the Court upheld the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, granting Rs 1 lakh as maintenance to the respondent.
[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4923, decided on 15-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Bimlesh Kumar, Sushil Kumar Singh, Monika Gupta, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sumit Rana, Advocate
