Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Del) 715

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
Pushpa @ Baby - Petitioner
Versus
State & Anr. – Respondents
Crl.M.C. 1129 of 2020
Decided On : 28-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Bansal and Mr. Abhishek Verma, Advs.
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar, APP, Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Mr. Suraj Rawat, Ms. Sapna & Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advs.

The definition of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act includes economic abuse, which must be substantiated through credible evidence to warrant maintenance.

Headnote:(A) Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 3 - The petitioner filed a petition alleging domestic violence and seeking maintenance. The learned Magistrate initially granted maintenance but was overturned by ASJ, citing insufficient evidence of violence or economic abuse. The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence for claims. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 20)

(B) Domestic Violence - Definition includes economic abuse, which encompasses denial of financial resources. The court reiterated that domestic violence is not limited to physical harm but may include economic deprivation. (Paras 10, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged continuous harassment and dowry demands from the respondent, including a motorcycle and money for a family member's marriage. Petitioner was ousted from her home in 2012 and faced challenges proving claims of abuse. (Paras 2, 3, 6)

Findings of Court:
The ASJ set aside the magistrate's maintenance order, concluding the allegations of domestic violence lacked substantial proof; the petitioner did not prove physical or economic abuse. (Paras 5, 13, 14)

Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner could substantiate claims of domestic violence to justify maintenance. (Paras 7, 5)

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that economic abuse must be substantiated with evidence, rejecting some allegations due to insufficient detail and lack of supporting witnesses. (Paras 18, 19)

Result: The petition was allowed to reinstate maintenance for the petitioner and the minor child as originally awarded. (Paras 24, 25)

Table of Content
1. background of domestic violence complaint (Para 1 , 2)
2. court's analysis of evidence by magistrate (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding domestic violence and maintenance (Para 7 , 8)
4. definition and inclusion of economic abuse in dv act (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. substantiation of domestic violence allegations (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
6. entitlement to maintenance due to economic abuse (Para 18 , 19)
7. assessment of maintenance amount and income analysis (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. final decision on maintenance order (Para 24 , 25)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed against the judgment dated 03.12.2019 (hereafter ‘impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CA No. 38/2019 whereby the appeal filed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) was allowed and the order dated 03.12.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate granting maintenance @4,000/- per month each to the petitioner and her minor child was set aside.

2. As per the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the DV Act, the marriage between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 18.02.2011 and one child was born out of the said wedlock. It is alleged that post the marriage of the petitioner, she was constantly subjected to torture at the hands of Respondent No. 2 in relation to demand of dowry. It is alleged that despite having received sufficient dowry, Respondent No. 2 demanded one motorcycle from the petitioner’s family. It is alleged that on 19.04.2012, the family members of Respondent No. 2 abused the petitioner. Further, on 20.04.2012, the petitioner was subjected to beatings and also asked to bring a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the marriage of the sister of Respondent No. 2. It is also the case of the petitioner that on account of the inability of the petitioner to fulfil the said demand, she was ousted from her matrimonial home on 21.04.2012.

3. By the order dated 03.12.2018, the learned Magistrate noted that the petitioner had failed to establish that she was subjected to any domestic violence. It was noted that the petitioner failed to place on record any police complaint that may have been made her at the time when the petitioner was dispossessed and has failed to examine any independent witness or family member to corroborate the act of domestic violence.

4. The learned Magistrate however noted that the petitioner was forced to live separately from Respondent No. 2 since 21.04.2012. It was noted that the negligence of Respondent No. 2 in maintaining the petitioner and their child itself constituted an act of domestic violence as per Section 3(iv) of the DV Act. Consequently, while assessing the income of Respondent No. 2 as Rs.20,000/- per month, the learned Magistrate awarded maintenance for a sum of Rs.4,000/- each to the petitioner and their minor child.

5. By the impugned judgment, the learned ASJ set aside the order dated 03.12.2018. It was noted that the learned Magistrate itself recorded that the petitioner failed to establish that she was subjected to any cruelty or harassment. It was noted that while the petitioner alleged that she was subjected to harassment in relation to demand for dowry, however, she failed to mention any instance to highlight the time and manner in which she was harassed. It was noted that while the petitioner stated that she was subjected to beatings by Respondent No. 2 and his family members in relation to the petitioner being pressurised to get a sum of Rs.50,000/-, however, no witness was examined by the petitioner to corroborate the same.

6. The learned ASJ also considered the allegations of the petitioner that at the time when she was ousted from her matrimonial house, Respondent No. 2 refused to hand over the custody of her son, and that it was only with the help of the Ambedkar Nagar Police that the petitioner was able to get the custody of