IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Domestic violence and ouster from matrimonial home – Unlike Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C., there is no express statutory bar under PWDV Act disentitling a woman from seeking reliefs merely on allegation that she is living in adultery.
(2) Monetary relief, including maintenance, can be granted under PWDV Act in addition to maintenance awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.—The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-husband, assailing the order dated 31.10.2023 [hereafter „impugned order ], passed by the learned ASJ-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereafter „Sessions Court ] vide which the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [hereafter „PWDV Act ] was dismissed, and the order dated 22.10.2021, passed by the learned MM-03, Mahila Court, Central, Tis Hazari Courts [hereafter „Magistrate ] was upheld.

Factual Background

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife were married on 26.09.2014, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. No child was born from the wedlock. Owing to differences between the parties, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home and filed an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act along with an application under Section 23 of the PWDV Act, inter alia, alleging that she had been subjected to sexual, verbal, emotional and economic harassment, as well as harassment on account of dowry demands. Reply to the said application was thereafter filed by the petitioner-husband. The parties subsequently filed their respective affidavits of income and assets, along with their bank statements and income tax returns (ITRs).

3. The learned Magistrate, vide order dated 22.10.2021, allowed the application under Section 23 of the PWDV Act and directed the petitioner-husband to pay an amount of Rs.26,000/- per month to the respondent-wife, from the date of filing of the petition till disposal of the case, towards interim maintenance.

4. The petitioner-husband, being aggrieved by the said order, challenged the same by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the PWDV Act, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved therefrom, the present revision petition has been filed.

Submissions Before the Court

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband primarily contends that the respondent-wife is not entitled to any monetary relief under the PWDV Act as she is allegedly living in adultery and is involved in a live-in relationship with one „X during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner. It is argued that a woman living in adultery cannot be treated as an “aggrieved person” within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the PWDV Act and, therefore, no order of maintenance could have been passed in her favour. The learned counsel submits that photographs placed on record clearly depict the respondent in a compromising position with the said person and that both the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Court failed to properly appreciate the said material. It is further argued that the learned Sessions Court erred in doubting the genuineness and veracity of the photographs at the interim stage, despite the same prima facie indicating an illicit relationship. It is also pointed out that the petitioner has already filed a petition seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, which is pending adjudication. According to the learned counsel, once such conduct of the respondent is apparent, even prima facie, the grant of interim maintenance was wholly unwarranted. He also states that the petitioner is willing to deposit the maintenance amount in Court till the issue of adultery is finally decided after evidence is led by both the parties.

6. On the aspect of income and financial capacity, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that both the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Court have grossly erred in assessing the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.79,000/- per month. It is argued that the petitioner is only 10th pass and is working merely as a commission agent, earning about Rs.25,000/- per month, whereas the respondent is a graduate, admittedly more qualified than the petitioner, and is earning about Rs.30,000/- per month. The learn