DV Act Makes No Distinction Between First or Second Marriage for Maintenance, Says Delhi HC

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has recently held that the Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or second marriage when it comes to awarding maintenance.

The verdict was passed by a bench presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma while dealing with a plea filed by a husband challenging a trial court order, which had upheld maintenance of Rs 1,00,000 per month under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The husband had argued before the court that the present marriage was the wife’s second, and that she had two sons from her previous marriage.

Finding the argument wholly misconceived, the judge remarked, “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 wife had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act.

The husband, however, contended that the trial court failed to consider his medical condition, adding that he suffers from Ankylosing Spondylitis and needs Rs 1.56 lakh per month for treatment. He also argued that his income, as reflected in his Income Tax Returns, had been declining and that the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own will.

However, the Court noted, “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.”

Observing that the petitioner husband has no dependents other than the respondent wife, the judge said, “The learned Trial Court has, therefore, justifiably held that the respondent wife is entitled to enjoy the same standard of living, especially in light of the fact that the petitioner’s own disclosures reflect monthly expenses in excess of ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakhs.”

Having found no illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the trial court’s order, the Court dismissed the present appeal filed by the husband.

Case Title: X vs Y

Click here to read the judgement