Recently, the Delhi High Court, while examining the contours of interim relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), drew a firm line between entitlement and entitlement lost through suppression, holding that a spouse who withholds material facts relating to income cannot seek monetary maintenance on the plea of financial incapacity, even as the Court simultaneously emphasised that denial of maintenance does not, by itself, extinguish a woman’s statutory right to secure a roof over her head.
Brief Facts:
The case arose from matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the respondent, married in February 2012 according to Sikh rites, with a minor son born in January 2013. After separation, the wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, alleging emotional and verbal abuse and seeking interim maintenance and residence.
An ad-interim maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for the wife and child was initially granted on the basis of the husband’s admitted income, which was later modified by the Trial Court to Rs 15,000 per month each for the wife and the minor child. Both parties challenged this order under Section 29 of the PWDV Act. The Sessions Court upheld maintenance for the child but set aside the wife’s entitlement, citing concealment of income and lack of clean hands. Aggrieved, the wife invoked the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the CrPC, giving rise to the present proceedings.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner contended that the Sessions Court erred in presuming a continuing earning capacity merely on account of her educational qualifications. The Petitioner argued that her prior employment was short-lived, that she had lost her job due to ongoing litigation and childcare responsibilities, and that she presently had no independent income. It was submitted that the alleged bank credits were either maturity proceeds of investments left by her deceased parents or reinvestments made for the child’s future, and not income. The Petitioner also asserted that the denial of interim maintenance ignored her statutory right to residence under Section 19 of the PWDV Act.
Contentions of the Respondent:
On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the Petitioner was a dual MBA, had prior work experience, and was financially capable of maintaining herself. The Respondent alleged deliberate suppression of income, incomplete disclosure of bank statements, and concealment of earnings from employment and private tuition. It was submitted that maintenance cannot be claimed by a spouse who withholds material financial information and that the Sessions Court had correctly denied interim maintenance to the wife while protecting the child’s interest
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that despite filing income affidavits, the petitioner failed to disclose employment during the relevant period and did not annex bank statements until specifically directed. The Court recorded that “the petitioner had concealed material facts and suppressed her true income,” and that such conduct disentitled her from claiming interim maintenance on the assertion of financial incapacity
The Court reiterated the settled principle that interim maintenance is conditional upon a spouse being unable to maintain herself and observed that “a party who suppresses material information regarding his or her income cannot claim maintenance on the premise that he or she is unable to maintain herself.” The petitioner’s educational qualifications, prior earnings, unexplained credit entries, and interest-generating investments cumulatively justified the finding that she possessed independent financial resources at the interim stage.
However, the Court drew a clear distinction between monetary maintenance and residential rights under the PWDV Act. Referring to Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act, the Bench held that denial of maintenance does not ipso facto extinguish a woman’s right to secure alternative accommodation. Noting that the petitioner and the minor child were residing at her brother’s house purely out of goodwill, the Court observed that the husband continues to bear a statutory obligation to ensure residence for the aggrieved woman and the child.
The decision of the Court:
In conclusion, the Court partly allowed the revision, affirming the denial of interim monetary maintenance to the wife on account of concealment of income, while modifying the impugned order to grant her Rs 10,000 per month towards rental accommodation under Section 19 of the PWDV Act, in addition to the child’s maintenance already upheld.
Case Title: Sahiba Sodhi v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.REV.P. 917/2024
Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates for the Petitioner: Advs. N. K. Sharma, Gaurav Bhandari, Harish Kumar
Advocates for the Respondents: APP Manoj Pant, Adv. Prateek
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
