Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
Ateet Jain – Petitioner
Versus
Chhavi Jain – Respondent
Crl. Rev. P. 335 of 2024, CRL.M.A. 7628 of 2024 & CRL.M.A. 32853 of 2025
Decided On : 04-02-2026
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The revision petition was filed by the petitioner-husband against orders related to interim maintenance and the dismissal of his appeal under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The parties were married on 26.09.2014, with no children born from the marriage, and the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home due to differences and allegations of domestic violence (!) .
The respondent-wife filed an application under Section 12 and Section 23 of the PWDV Act, alleging physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic harassment, including dowry demands (!) .
The Magistrate ordered interim maintenance of ₹26,000 per month, which was challenged by the petitioner-husband and subsequently dismissed by the appellate court (!) (!) .
The petitioner contended that the respondent-wife was living in adultery and involved in a live-in relationship during the subsistence of her marriage, supported by photographs purportedly depicting her in compromising situations (!) (!) .
The petitioner also argued that the respondent-wife’s claim for maintenance should be denied because she was not an "aggrieved person" under the PWDV Act due to her alleged adultery, and that the courts failed to properly evaluate the photographs and evidence (!) (!) .
The respondent-wife denied the allegations of adultery, asserting that the photographs were morphed and fabricated, and contended that such unproven allegations should not influence the grant of interim relief (!) (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that, at the interim stage, allegations of adultery are to be treated as disputed questions of fact that require evidence; hence, such allegations cannot be a sole basis for denying maintenance (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the scope of the PWDV Act is broader than that of criminal or matrimonial law, and there is no statutory bar in the Act preventing a woman from claiming reliefs, including maintenance, even if she is alleged to be living in adultery (!) (!) .
The Court observed that the respondent’s allegations of domestic violence, supported by prima facie evidence, established her status as an "aggrieved person" under the Act (!) (!) .
Regarding the assessment of the petitioner-husband’s income, the Court found that the credit entries in his bank account, along with his previous income tax returns, indicated a higher earning capacity than claimed, justifying the maintenance amount (!) (!) .
The Court upheld the orders of the lower courts, finding that the interim maintenance was reasonable and that the concurrent findings of fact did not warrant interference at this stage (!) (!) .
Directions were issued to expedite the final adjudication of the main proceedings within approximately one year and to consider the possibility of repayment of interim maintenance if allegations of adultery are ultimately proven (!) (!) (!) .
The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly, with the judgment to be uploaded on the court’s website (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require further analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case and proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments by both parties regarding maintenance. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's observations on the issue of adultery. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 22) |
| 4. legal reasoning on interim maintenance entitlement. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. conclusion preserving interim maintenance. (Para 25 , 26 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. 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 M
Interim maintenance under the PWDV Act cannot be denied based solely on unproven allegations of adultery; status as an aggrieved person remains intact at the interim stage.
(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 allegat....
Unproven allegations of adultery do not disqualify a wife from receiving interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to relief under the PWDV Act based on the finding of a domestic relationship, and the permissibility of adjustment of maintenance a....
The court must evaluate maintenance claims based on financial capacity and standard of living, rather than equalization of wealth post-separation.
Point of law: Maintenance – Adultery - When piea of adultery is taken it is a serious defence of the respondent. If he failed to prove that particular aspect, then it amounts to character assassinati....
The duty of a husband to provide maintenance to the wife exists unless exceptions under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. are proven. Grounds of cruelty, adultery, and desertion do not disentitle the wife f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of actual earnings, standard of living, and liabilities in determining the maintenance amount under the Protection of Women from Dom....
The judgment established that the provisions of Section 125 Cr.P.C aim to prevent destitution of a deserted wife and must be considered in light of the welfare of the children. It also clarified that....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
