Unproven Allegations Of Adultery No Basis To Deny Interim Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that mere allegations of adultery, unsupported by proof, cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that unlike Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., there is no express statutory bar under the DV Act disentitling a woman from seeking reliefs merely on the allegation that she is living in adultery.

However, the Court said that Explanation II to Section 3 of the DV Act clarifies that, for the purposes of determining whether any act, omission or conduct constitutes “domestic violence”, the overall facts and circumstances of the case are required to be taken into consideration.

“Thus, any material or evidence relating to the conduct of the wife, including allegations of adultery, would undoubtedly be a relevant factor; however, the same would essentially be a matter requiring adjudication after evidence is led,” the Court said.

It observed that accusations of adultery raise disputed questions of fact which can only be decided after evidence is led.

Justice Sharma was dealing with a husband's plea challenging the orders passed by the Magistrate Court and the Sessions Court directing him to pay Rs. 26,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife under the DV Act.

The husband contended that the wife was living in adultery and therefore, could not be treated as an “aggrieved person” under the Act.

He relied upon certain photographs to allege that the wife was in a live-in relationship with another man during the subsistence of the marriage. The wife, however, disputed the authenticity of the photographs, claiming they were morphed and fabricated.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned order, the Court said that at the interim stage, it was not inclined to interfere with the order granting interim maintenance only on the ground of allegations levelled by the husband that the wife was living in an adulterous relationship.

However, considering that the parties had raised serious allegations against each other, the Court directed the Magistrate to make all endeavours to decide the petition filed under Section 12 of the DV Act expeditiously, preferably within one year.

“It is further clarified that in the event the learned Magistrate/Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, comes to the conclusion that the respondent-wife is not entitled to maintenance on account of living in adultery, the respondent-wife shall be liable to return the entire amount of interim maintenance received by her to the petitioner-husband, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, in accordance with law,” the Court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Ms. Kashika Kapoor, Mr. Apoorva Khosla, Ms. Shreya Kumar Sharma and Mr. Surender Chauhan, Advocates, with petitioner

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Roopenshu Pratap Singh, Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Bhatnagar and Mr. Aditya Taneja, Advocates

Title: X v. Y

Click here to read order