$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 576/2025, CRL.M.A. 37887/2025 XXXX .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate.

versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI) & ANR. ....Respondents Through: Mr. Digam Singh Dagar, APP for State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025

1. This revision petition assails order dated 29^th October, 2025, passed by the Sessions Court, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005., “DV Act” The appeal arose from order dated 25^th April, 2025 passed by the Mahila Court, Karkardooma Courts, whereby (i) the Petitioner’s plea seeking residence rights in respect of the premises at Vijay Vihar, Delhi was declined on the ground that the said premises was not shown, even prima facie, to be a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Act, and (ii) the prayer for additional interim monetary relief was rejected, noticing that the Petitioner was already receiving ₹20,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2

2. The Petitioner (wife) and the Respondent (husband) married on 14^th

2 “Cr.P.C.”

April, 2022. The relationship soon ran into turbulence and the parties separated on 14^th September, 2022. The Petitioner thereafter initiated proceedings under the DV Act, 2005 seeking, among other reliefs, (i) a residence order on the footing that the premises at Vijay Vihar, Delhi constituted shared household, and (ii) interim monetary relief.

3. The Mahila Court, by order dated 25^th April, 2025, declined both prayers. It held that the record did not prima facie establish that the Vijay Vihar premises qualified as a shared household within Section 2(s) of the Act, particularly as the pleadings were silent on the period of residence and the contemporaneous record reflected that the parties lived at a rented accommodation in Mandawali. On interim monetary relief, the Mahila Court recorded that the Petitioner was already receiving ₹20,000/- per month as ad-interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and found no basis, on the documents on record, to grant any additional amount, at that stage. The Petitioner carried the matter in appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. The Sessions Court, by order dated 29^th October, 2025, affirmed the reasoning of the Mahila Court and dismissed the appeal.

4. The present revision seeks interference with these concurrent orders.

5. Counsel for the Petitioner argues that both the Courts have proceeded on an unduly restrictive understanding of the Petitioner’s entitlements under the DV Act. On the aspect of residence, it is urged that the Vijay Vihar premises constitutes a “shared household” and that the Petitioner cannot be denied the statutory right under Section 17 merely because she is not presently residing there or because the parties also stayed at a rented accommodation during the subsistence of the marriage. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi,, (2022) 8 SCC 90. to contend that actual residence at the time of seeking relief is not mandatory and that the right to reside can be enforced even where the aggrieved woman has been excluded. On maintenance, it is contended that the Petitioner is unemployed, presently dependent on her parents, and that her brief pre- marital employment cannot be treated as evidence of earning capacity. It is submitted that the bank statements show only sporadic credits and do not indicate any stable income. The Petitioner further argues that award of ad- interim amount of ₹20,000/- under Section 125 Cr.P.C. neither considers Respondent No. 2’s earnings, which are around ₹1,25,000/- per month, nor does it cater to the Petitioner’s reasonable needs. On this basis, it is argued that refusal to grant a residence order and denial of additional interim monetary relief suffer from non-consideration of material facts and warrant i