Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the husband against the order dated 8-1-2025 (‘impugned order’) wherein the Sessions Judge had upheld the order of maintenance granted by the Trial Court, the Single Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J, held that gifts received by the wife from her parents and relatives, including stridhan, could not be construed as a source of income for the purposes of a claim of maintenance. Accordingly, the Court upheld the order of grant of maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife.
Background
The petitioner-husband and the respondent wife had been married since 2018 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies. The wife alleged that soon after the wedding, she had been subjected to continuous physical, verbal, emotional, sexual and economic abuse by the husband. She had further alleged that the petitioner was an alcoholic who repeatedly assaulted her and had unlawfully withheld her jewelry worth approximately Rs. 20 lakhs. The wife had also averred that in 2019 she had discovered that the husband had been paying other women for sexual favors. Subsequently, the wife had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) against the husband and his mother. By order dated 20-7-2024, the Trial Court had directed payment of interim maintenance of Rs. 50,000 per month to the wife. Against this order, the husband had preferred an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act and vide the impugned order, the Sessions Court had dismissed the appeal.
The grievance raised by the husband in the instant petition was that the Trial Court and Sessions Court had erred in treating the wife as financially dependent despite her having substantial means and investments.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the husband’s plea claiming that he was unemployed at the time of marriage and continues to remain without any source of income was not borne out from the material available on record. Rather, the bank statements showed recurrent financial transactions reflecting a gross income of over 9 lakh rupees. Furthermore, the photographs placed on record depicted the husband leading a lifestyle wholly inconsistent with the financial hardship claimed by him, which clearly contradicted his plea of unemployment.
The Court rejected the husband’s contention that the wife possesses sufficient independent means, relying on her inherited and family-gifted assets. The Court held that the stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim for maintenance. The Court further opined that a claim for maintenance is not dependent on the financial status of the wife’s parental home but rather on her present earing capacity and ability to sustain herself in the standard of living she was accustomed to during her marriage.
The Court reiterated that the law places a higher moral and legal obligation on an able-bodied husband to provide for the maintenance of his wife and children. An able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning sufficiently to maintain his dependents, and it is for him to place credible material before the Court to show genuine inability to discharge this obligation.
The Court considered the material on record to note that the husband had substantial income and earnings from profits derived from the family business in which he has a share. The husband belongs to a financially affluent business family and receives substantial financial assistance and support from his parents. Thus, the Court opined that the husband could not take the plea of not having a source of income or earning.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed the impugned order and held that the quantum of Rs. 50,00 per month as interim maintenance was just, reasonable and commensurate with the needs of the wife and the financial capacity of the husband.
[X v. Y., CRL. REV. P. No. 51 of 2025, decided on 10-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Prashant Mendiratta, Janvi Vohra, Akshat Kaushik, Veenu Singh, Vaishnavi Saxena, Aamya, Advocates
For the Respondent: Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate