DATE: 04/02/2026
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
FACTS:
The petitioner-husband and the
respondent-wife were married on 26.09.2014 according to Hindu rites and
ceremonies, with no child born from the wedlock. Due to matrimonial differences
and allegations of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse
(including dowry demands, derogatory remarks, character assassination, forced
cessation of employment, denial of basic financial support, physical abuse
during honeymoon, and two miscarriages attributed to cruelty), the
respondent-wife left the matrimonial home. She filed an application under
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV
Act), along with an application under Section 23 for interim relief. The
petitioner-husband filed a reply denying the allegations. Both parties
submitted affidavits of income and assets, bank statements, and ITRs. The
learned Magistrate, vide order dated 22.10.2021, granted interim maintenance of
₹26,000/- per month to the wife from the date of filing until disposal of the
case. The husband appealed this under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, but the
appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Court vide the impugned order dated
31.10.2023, upholding the Magistrate's order.
Aggrieved, the husband filed the present
criminal revision petition (CRL.REV. P. 335/2024) before the Delhi High Court.
The husband primarily alleged that the wife was disentitled to relief under the
PWDV Act as she was "living in adultery" in a live-in relationship
with one 'X', supported by certain photographs allegedly showing her in
compromising positions. He also challenged the income assessment of ₹79,000/-
per month (based on bank credits and ITRs), claiming his actual earnings were
only about ₹25,000/- as a commission agent (10th pass), while the wife (a
graduate) earned ₹30,000/- per month, and large bank credits were from matured
PPF/FD/RD of his parents. The wife countered with allegations of the husband's
extra-marital affairs (supported by chats) and denied the adultery claim,
asserting the photographs were morphed/fabricated and that disputed facts
required trial evidence.
ISSUES:
The primary issues before the Delhi High
Court in this revision petition were: (i) whether, at the interim maintenance
stage under the PWDV Act, unproven allegations that the wife is "living in
adultery" (based on photographs yet to be proved) can disentitle her from
being considered an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) of the Act
and bar her from receiving monetary relief; and (ii) whether the concurrent
findings of the Magistrate and Sessions Court on the husband's income (assessed
at ₹79,000/- per month based on ITRs and substantial bank credits) and the
quantum of interim maintenance (₹26,000/- per month) were arbitrary, perverse,
or warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Delhi High Court (Justice Swarana Kanta
Sharma) dismissed the revision petition, refusing to interfere with the
impugned orders granting ₹26,000/- per month as interim maintenance to the
wife. The Court upheld the concurrent findings on income assessment and
quantum, holding that unproven allegations of adultery cannot deny interim
relief under the PWDV Act at this stage. However, it directed the trial court
to expeditiously decide the main Section 12 petition (preferably within one
year), clarified that if the wife is ultimately found not entitled due to
living in adultery, she must refund the entire interim maintenance received
with 6% interest per annum, and required her to file an undertaking affidavit
to this effect before receiving further amounts.
In the first limb of reasoning, the Court
emphasized the prima facie nature of interim proceedings under the PWDV Act and
the absence of any express statutory bar (unlike Section 125(4) CrPC, which
disentitles a wife living in adultery from maintenance). The PWDV Act provides
broader reliefs for domestic violence (including monetary relief/maintenance)
to an "aggrieved person" in a domestic relationship who alleges
abuse. Here, the wife's allegations of prolonged domestic violence (supported
by WhatsApp chats showing abusive language, domestic incident report, and other
material) prima facie satisfied Section 2(a). The husband's adultery claim
rested on unproven photographs (disputed as morphed/fabricated by the wife),
which could only be adjudicated after full evidence at trial, not at the
interim stage where only a prima facie view is taken. Relying on coordinate
bench decisions like Ajay Kumar v. Uma (2024), Parveen Tandon v. Tanika Tandon
(2021), and Nirmaan Malhotra v. Tushita Kaul (2024), the Court held that
unproven/isolated allegations of adultery or illicit relationships cannot
disentitle a wife to interim maintenance, as disputed factual questions require
evidence-led determination. Denial at this stage would cause grave hardship to
the wife during pendency, and the Act's wider scope (covering economic abuse
etc.) prioritizes protection over unestablished counter-allegations (which
could be countered by the wife's own evidence of the husband's conduct).
In the second limb, regarding income and
quantum, the Court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings
of the lower courts. The husband's own ITRs (showing ₹6.58 lakhs in AY 2014-15
and ₹3.37 lakhs in AY 2019-20) and bank statements (with cumulative credits of
₹28,45,120/- over three years, including large entries) justified the ₹79,000/-
monthly income assessment, absent cogent proof that credits were non-income
(e.g., parental PPF/FD maturities or loan repayments). The husband failed to
substantiate these explanations with material before the lower courts, and
revisional jurisdiction does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or interference
with reasoned concurrent findings based on the petitioner's own documents. The
₹26,000/- quantum was deemed reasonable and not excessive. To balance equities
amid mutual serious allegations, the Court directed expeditious trial disposal
and imposed a refund condition (with 6% interest) if adultery is proved
ultimately, ensuring no prejudice while protecting the wife's interim
sustenance needs.
ANALYSIS:
The Delhi High Court’s ruling reaffirms the
protective and welfare-oriented character of the PWDV Act, particularly at the
interim stage. The Court correctly distinguished the statutory scheme of the
PWDV Act from Section 125(4) CrPC, noting that there is no express
disqualification of a woman “living in adultery” under the DV Act. Emphasising
that interim maintenance proceedings are prima facie in nature, the Court held
that unproven and disputed allegations of adultery, especially those based on
photographs whose authenticity is denied, cannot disentitle a woman from being
treated as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a). By relying on consistent
coordinate bench jurisprudence, the Court underscored that factual
controversies involving moral conduct require evidence-led adjudication at
trial, and denying interim relief on such grounds would defeat the object of
the Act by exposing the claimant to economic hardship during pendency.
On the issue of income assessment and
quantum, the Court adopted a deferential revisional approach, declining to
interfere with concurrent, reasoned findings of the Magistrate and Sessions
Court. It held that ITRs and substantial bank credits furnished by the husband
himself constituted reliable indicators of earning capacity, and bald
explanations that such credits were non-income, unsupported by documentary
proof, could not be entertained at the revisional stage. The maintenance amount
of ₹26,000/- per month was found to be neither arbitrary nor excessive,
particularly in light of the husband’s financial disclosures. Notably, the
Court struck an equitable balance by directing expeditious disposal of the main
DV petition and imposing a conditional restitution mechanism, mandating refund
with interest if the wife is ultimately found disentitled, thereby safeguarding
both parties’ interests while preserving the wife’s right to subsistence
pending trial.
info@adhwaitha.com