The Delhi High Court recently said that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act does not distinguish between a wife's first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of maintenance.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma made the observation while dealing a man's plea against the grant of ₹1 lakh monthly maintenance to his wife.
It was the husband's argument that he had demonstrated his good faith and intentions by accepting the wife along with her two sons from her previous marriage. The Court called the argument misconceived.
"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 Court rejected the husband's argument that his wife was capable of earning, holding,
"While capability to earn may be a relevant factor, it must be demonstrated that the wife is gainfully employed or receiving income sufficient to maintain herself, which is not the case here. The income affidavit filed by the respondent wife reveals a meagre income of ₹12,000 per month, with remaining expenses reportedly met through loans or borrowings."
Challenging the maintenance awarded by a sessions court to the wife, the husband had argued that he suffers from Ankylosing Spondylitis, a chronic illness requiring expensive treatment.
He also claimed that his income was lower than estimated, whereas the wife was overstating her expenses. Further, he said that the wife was able-bodied and had voluntarily left the matrimonial home.
At the outset, the Court noted that the husband, as per his own income tax returns, had declared an annual income of ₹28 lakh for 2020–21 and ₹36 lakh for 2021–22. Although he claimed to be spending ₹1.56 lakh per month on treatment for his condition, he failed to provide any medical documents or bills to support this, the Court said.
"From the income affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is also evident that he is maintaining a high standard of living. He has himself admitted to employing a driver, cook, caretaker, and maid, with monthly expenses of ₹31,000 on driver and fuel, ₹10,000 on entertainment, and ₹4,000 on domestic help. These figures establish that the petitioner is leading a comfortable lifestyle and has the financial capacity to bear the awarded maintenance," the Court found.
It also agreed with the wife’s contention that the husband was trying to sell off property during the case to avoid his financial responsibilities, and thus found that the trial court was right in restricting him from disposing of his assets without court approval.
"This Court also finds no infirmity in the order of the learned Trial Court declining maintenance to the major sons of the respondent wife, as they are not legally entitled to the same, in the absence of any material indicating continued dependency...," the Court further said, while dismissing the husband's plea.
Advocates Bimlesh Kumar, Sushil Kumar Singh and Monika Gupta appeared for the husband.
Advocate Sumit Rana appeared for the wife.
[Read Order]