Baseless Allegations Of Wife's Prior Marriage No Bar To Relief Under DV Act; Wife Entitled To Maintenance: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere allegations of a subsisting prior marriage, in the absence of any legally valid proof, cannot disentitle a woman from seeking relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Once marriage inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1 is admitted and no legal/valid document with regard...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that mere allegations of a subsisting prior marriage, in the absence of any legally valid proof, cannot disentitle a woman from seeking relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Sandeep Sharma remarked that: “Once marriage inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1 is admitted and no legal/valid document with regard to subsistence of earlier marriage of respondent-wife ever came to be placed on record, learned Sessions Judge rightly proceeded to allow the complaint…”
Background:
The wife of petitioner filed complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, alleging domestic violence, dowry harassment, and economic neglect. She contended after marriage she faced cruelty by her husband and in-laws and was even denied maintenance.
The trial court dismissed her complaint on the ground that she had allegedly contracted the marriage with the petitioner during the subsistence of an earlier marriage. However, the Sessions Court reversed this finding and granted ₹10,000 per month as maintenance along with ₹5,000 towards rental accommodation.
Aggrieved, the husband filed petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging the order of Sessions Court.
The High Court remarked that since the marriage between the parties was admitted, the wife was entitled to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.
Further the Court observed that the wife had successfully proved acts of domestic violence, including physical and mental cruelty and dowry harassment.
Also, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim regarding the wife had an independent source of income.
The Court then remarked that Petitioner being legally wedded husband is responsible for providing her some pocket money and is under obligation to pay sufficient amount for household activities.
Thus, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Case Name: Jatinpreet Singh V/s Pooja Devi & Ors.
Case No.: Cr.MMO No.901 of 2025
Date of Decision: 23.03.2026
For the petitioner: Mr. Paras Ram, Advocate, vice Mr. B.R. Kashyap, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Nagta, Advocate for respondent No.1.