In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court clarified that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not differentiate between a first or subsequent marriage when it comes to awarding maintenance to a wife. The court emphasized that a woman, regardless of whether it’s her first or second marriage, retains the statutory right to claim financial support from her husband.
The case involved a man challenging an earlier trial court order that directed him to pay ₹1,00,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The husband argued that the wife had two sons from her previous marriage and that the relationship was his wife's second marriage. He also claimed that his financial and medical condition did not permit him to pay the directed amount.
However, the High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, dismissed the plea and upheld the enhanced maintenance amount. The Court noted that the man had voluntarily married the woman knowing her background and could not now use it as a defense to escape legal responsibilities.
Read also:- Chhattisgarh High Court: Husband Cannot Force Wife to Share Mobile or Bank Passwords
“The Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance. Once the petitioner voluntarily entered into the marriage and accepted the respondent and her children, he cannot now use that as a defence to resist his statutory obligations.”
The husband claimed to be suffering from Ankylosing Spondylitis, a chronic condition, and stated that he required around ₹1.56 lakh monthly for medical care. However, the Court found these claims unsubstantiated due to lack of medical evidence. Despite alleging declining income, his own income tax records showed an annual income of ₹28 lakhs and ₹36 lakhs in consecutive years.
The Court also pointed out the contradiction between his declared income and his lavish lifestyle. He was employing a driver, cook, caretaker, and spending over ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakhs monthly on personal expenses, indicating his ability to support his wife.
Read also:- MP High Court Orders ₹35 Lakh Compensation in Sexual Harassment Case, Fines State ₹5 Lakh for Delay in FIR
“It is beyond comprehension that a person earning less than ₹1 lakh monthly could spend ₹1.56 lakhs on himself. His income tax returns show otherwise.”
During the proceedings, the wife alleged that the husband attempted to alienate properties to avoid financial liability. The Court found merit in her claim and noted that he transferred assets without consideration to relatives. As a result, the trial court rightly restricted the husband from selling any property without court permission.
“Such conduct lends further credence to the wife’s apprehension and undermines the petitioner’s credibility.”
Read also:- Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Demands Cancellation of FIR Against Advocate
Quoting landmark Supreme Court rulings, the High Court reiterated that the law mandates husbands to maintain their wives in a manner consistent with their lifestyle and dignity, especially if the wife is not earning or dependent.
The Court also addressed the issue of the wife’s capability to earn. While she was physically able, the absence of gainful employment or sufficient income means that maintenance cannot be denied on that ground.
“The wife’s right to receive maintenance, unless disqualified, is an absolute right. The husband must support her unless legally exempt.”
Read also:- MP High Court Orders Mandatory Injury Photography to Prevent Misuse of 'Petty' Sections in Serious Cases
The husband also objected to the amount on the basis that part of the wife's claimed expenses was for her adult sons. The Court clarified that major sons are not entitled to maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, and maintenance awarded was solely for the wife’s personal sustenance.
The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court’s decision to grant ₹1,00,000 per month as maintenance and dismissed the husband’s revision petition. It found no legal error in the lower court’s judgment and emphasized the husband's legal obligation to ensure his wife’s financial dignity.
“This Court finds no illegality, perversity, or material irregularity in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”
Title: X v. Y