Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging concurrent orders granting interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month to his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The Court held that a husband cannot evade his statutory duty to maintain his wife by claiming unemployment while living a luxurious lifestyle, nor can a wife’s education, family background, or inherited assets be used to deny her maintenance. Affirming the Trial Court and Sessions Court orders, the Court found the maintenance amount reasonable, just, and proportionate to the parties’ standard of living during marriage .
Facts
The marriage between the parties was solemnised in December 2018 at a luxury hotel in Delhi. Soon after marriage, serious matrimonial disputes arose. The wife alleged that she was subjected to continuous physical, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse by the husband, including incidents of assault, misappropriation of jewellery worth around ₹20 lakhs, and deliberate acts of abandonment. It was also alleged that the husband was an alcoholic and engaged in relationships with other women.
Initially, the parties resided in a high-end farmhouse with a monthly rent of approximately ₹1.25 lakhs and later shifted to premium rented accommodation in Vasant Kunj. The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in 2022. During proceedings, the Trial Court directed both parties to file income affidavits. By order dated 20 July 2024, the Trial Court granted interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month to the wife, holding that the husband had concealed his true income.
The husband’s statutory appeal under Section 29 of the Act was dismissed by the Sessions Court in January 2025, leading to the present criminal revision before the High Court .
Issues
The primary issue before the High Court was whether the Trial Court and Sessions Court erred in granting interim maintenance to the wife despite her educational qualifications, alleged investments, and family wealth. The Court also examined whether the husband’s plea of unemployment and limited income could justify interference with the concurrent findings on interim maintenance.
Petitioner’s arguments
The husband contended that he was unemployed at the time of marriage and thereafter, with no regular source of income, and that he merely held an honorary position without remuneration. He argued that the wife had deliberately suppressed her substantial financial capacity, including ownership of multiple properties, fixed deposits, bank accounts, and large investments allegedly amounting to several crores. Reliance was placed on her Income Tax Returns showing significant income in prior years, sale of properties, and ownership of high-value assets such as a luxury vehicle.
It was further argued that the wife was highly educated, holding postgraduate and professional degrees, and was capable of earning a substantial income. On this basis, the husband claimed that she could not be treated as financially dependent and that the maintenance order was based on conjectures and presumptions rather than concrete evidence .
Respondent’s arguments
The wife opposed the revision petition, asserting that she was unemployed and had no fixed or recurring source of income. She argued that any assets in her name were inherited or gifted by her parents and could not be treated as income for the purpose of denying maintenance. It was contended that the husband belonged to an affluent business family, continued to enjoy a lavish lifestyle, and had deliberately under-reported his income.
The wife further submitted that the standard of living during marriage was undeniably high, as reflected from residence in premium accommodations, and that she was legally entitled to the same standard of living. It was also alleged that the husband had misused and appropriated her funds and assets, including sale proceeds of a luxury vehicle, strengthening her claim of financial vulnerability .
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the statutory framework governing interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act and reiterated that such maintenance is intended to prevent destitution and ensure dignified sustenance of an aggrieved woman. The assessment at the interim stage is prima facie in nature and does not require exact determination of income with mathematical precision.
The Court reaffirmed that stridhan, inherited property, or assets received from parents do not constitute “independent income” sufficient to deny maintenance. The relevant consideration is whether the wife has a stable and recurring income enabling her to maintain herself in the lifestyle enjoyed during matrimony. The burden lies on the husband, particularly when able-bodied, to disclose his true income and demonstrate genuine inability to pay.
Precedent analysis
The High Court relied on binding Supreme Court precedents including Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain, which holds that the financial position of the wife’s parents is irrelevant in maintenance proceedings, and Rajnesh v. Neha, which clarifies that education or potential earning capacity of a wife does not disentitle her from maintenance unless she is actually earning sufficient income. The Court also drew strength from earlier Delhi High Court decisions recognising that income declarations and tax returns of businessmen may not fully reflect actual earning capacity.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found the husband’s plea of unemployment to be contradicted by bank statements reflecting recurring financial transactions, income tax records showing substantial past income, and photographs indicating a lifestyle inconsistent with claimed financial distress. The Court noted that an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and cannot shirk his legal obligation by pleading unemployment without credible proof.
On the wife’s financial capacity, the Court held that sale of inherited assets, maturity of fixed deposits, or isolated financial transactions do not establish financial independence. The earlier order relied upon by the husband was found to relate only to residence rights and not maintenance.
Considering the parties’ social status, lifestyle during marriage, and the husband’s concealed income, the Court held that the interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month, inclusive of residence expenses, was neither excessive nor arbitrary and warranted no interference in revisional jurisdiction .
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition and upheld the concurrent orders granting interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month to the wife. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to interim maintenance and would not prejudice the merits of the pending domestic violence proceedings before the Trial Court. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly .
Implications
This judgment reinforces a consistent judicial stance that maintenance law prioritises dignity and standard of living over technical claims of unemployment or asset ownership. It underscores that husbands cannot avoid maintenance obligations through under-disclosure of income, and that women’s inherited or family-provided assets do not negate their right to maintenance. The ruling strengthens protection for aggrieved women under the Domestic Violence Act and provides clear guidance on assessment of interim maintenance.
Case law references
- Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain – Held that financial status of wife’s parents is irrelevant in determining maintenance.
- Rajnesh v. Neha – Clarified principles for determining maintenance and held that education or earning potential alone does not bar maintenance.
- Sumedha Bhardwaj v. Jagdeep Bhardwaj – Recognised that income disclosures may not fully reflect a businessman’s true earning capacity.
FAQs
1. Can a husband avoid maintenance by claiming unemployment?
No. An able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and must prove genuine inability to pay maintenance.
2. Do inherited assets or family wealth of a wife bar maintenance?
No. Such assets are not treated as independent income sufficient to deny maintenance.
3. Does a wife’s education disqualify her from interim maintenance?
No. Education or potential earning capacity alone does not disentitle a wife from claiming maintenance.
