Delhi HC says maintenance under Domestic Violence Act unrelated to inability of wife to maintain herself

Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 397 ¹ read with Section 401 ² of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) to challenge the judgment dated 29-04-2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), South District, Saket Courts and the order dated 20-08-2022 passed by the Trial Court, a Single Judge Bench of Amit Mahajan, J. dismissed the present petition and directed the Trial Court to pass the final order uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned judgment dated 29-04-2023 or in the present judgment.

Background

The ASJ, by the impugned judgment, had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) against the order dated 20-08-2022 whereby the Trial Court had directed petitioner 1 (husband) to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- per month as interim maintenance to respondent 2 (wife) along with an additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month as rent for alternative accommodation, from the date of filing of the case till its disposal.

In the impugned order dated 20-08-2022, the Trial Court noted that the parties were spouses who had shared a domestic household and the complaint as well as the Domestic Incident Report prima facie showed that the wife was a victim of domestic violence and was entitled to monetary compensation under the DV Act.

The husband’s monthly income was assessed to be Rs. 1,50,000/-. The ASJ noted the sudden drop in the husband’s gross income when the wife preferred an application under Section 12 of the DV Act.

It was said that even though the husband claimed that he was drawing a meagre salary from his father’s partnership firm, he was driving an expensive car and was receiving profits from the firm as well.

The husband submitted that he had been taking care of their children for more than three years and that the wife had not made any attempt to even meet them, and that the expense was being borne by petitioner 3 (husband’s father).

It was also submitted that the Income Tax Returns of the assessment year 2020-21 showed the annual income of the husband as Rs. 2,45,030/- which was less than his income in 2018-19 and 2019-20 because his business partner took a hit due to the pandemic.

The husband submitted that he had made all efforts to bring back the wife from her parental home and had repeatedly requested her as well, but she blatantly refused and thus, he had to return with only the children. Further, the husband denied the allegations of domestic violence and submitted that the wife had left him at her own will and that there was no proof of the domestic violence allegations levelled by her.

It was submitted that the wife was an ‘Air Hostess’ and was earning a handsome amount by giving private tuitions as well.

Analysis and Decision

The Court noted that Section 23 of the DV Act empowered the Magistrate to grant interim orders if the application prima facie disclosed that the respondent is committing, had committed, or may commit an act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person.

The Court said that in the present matter, the Trial as well as the Appellate Court had explicitly recorded that it prima facie appeared from the complaint that the wife was subjected to domestic violence and that there were images on record which showed injury marks on her body.

The Court agreed with the observation of the Trial Court that unlike Section 125 ³ of the CrPC, maintenance under the DV Act is not tethered to the inability of the wife/victim to maintain herself. Moreover, the Court said that in the absence of cogent proof of the wife being gainfully employed or earning a sufficient income to maintain herself, the allegation that she was earning through private tuition does not disentitle her from getting an award of interim maintenance.

The Court found it peculiar that on one end, the husband was working in a partnership firm owned by his father, and on the other end he had contended that he had to take care of his parents.

The Court said that the possibility of the husband undermining his income to avoid paying maintenance of an appropriate amount to the wife could not be ruled out at this stage. It was said that it is trite law that the Courts in such circumstances are permitted to make guesses and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning.

The Court referred to Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 192 wherein it was observed that the Court should initially determine the net disposable income of the husband or the primary earner within the family. If the other spouse is also employed, those earnings should be taken into consideration. It was said that this collective income forms the family resource cake, which is then distributed among the family members and such distribution must align with the financial needs of each family member.

The Court said that considering the children of the parties as dependents, the awarded amount was in conformity with the dictum of the above-mentioned decision.

The Court stated that two opportunities were granted to the petitioners to address arguments but they failed to appear ‘for reasons best known to them’. It was said that litigants cannot be allowed to take the Courts for granted and that Courts are not expected to keep cases pending at end for litigants who are not diligent to pursue the proceedings.

Further, the Court said that the impugned order dated 20-08-2022 was only regarding the interim maintenance and that the Trial Court would pass a final order for the maintenance after considering the evidence on record.

While dismissing the petition, the Court directed the Trial Court to pass the final order uninfluenced by the observations made in the impugned judgment dated 29-04-2023 or in the present judgment.

[X v. State, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6360, Decided on 09-09-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioners — Advocate Nipun Joshi

For Respondents — APP Pradeep Gahalot, Advocate Prashant Malik, Advocate Harsh Antil, Advocate Kanupriay Aswal, Advocate Mohit Panghal, Advocate Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Amit Bidhuri, Advocate Yogesh Sharma, Party-in-person