A husband's statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children under the Domestic Violence Act persists regardless of claimed financial hardship, although the quantum of maintenance may be adjusted based on the husband's actual financial capacity to ensure a fair balance.

: ORDER :

This Criminal Revision Case is filed challenging the judgment dated 06.05.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.49 of 2023 by the I Additional Family Court-cum-XIV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as petitioner-husband and respondent No.2-wife.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appeal was filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Domestic Violence Act’) by the appellant/husband, challenging the order dated 20.02.2023 passed in D.V.C.No.176 of 2015 by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The trial court had partly allowed the petition filed by the wife and directed the appellant to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to the wife, Rs.5,000/- and Rs.4,000/- to the two minor children respectively, along with Rs.8,000/- per month towards accommodation, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 22 of the Domestic Violence Act and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

3. The case of the respondent No.2-wife is that she was subjected to domestic violence by the petitioner-husband and his family members, including harassment for additional dowry, physical and mental cruelty, and threats, due to which she was forced to leave the matrimonial home along with her children and take shelter at her parental house. She further contended that the petitioner-husband neglected to maintain her and her children.

4. On the other hand, the petitioner-husband contended that he lost his job, had no source of income, and was unable to pay the maintenance amount. He further alleged that respondent No.2-wife voluntarily deserted him without any valid reason and that she had already taken her belongings. He also contended that there was no documentary evidence to prove his income or the alleged acts of domestic violence.

5. The appellate court, upon consideration of the material on record and the contentions of both parties, held that the domestic relationship between the parties is not in dispute and that the allegations of domestic violence were sufficiently established. It was further held that the petitioner being the husband and father has a statutory obligation to maintain his wife and children, irrespective of absence of documentary proof regarding income. Finding no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the reliefs granted to the wife and children. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

6. Heard Sri K. Surender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent - State and Sri G. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband submitted that the impugned judgment confirming the order of trial court is illegal, arbitrary, and passed without proper appreciation of facts and evidence and that the respondent No.2-wife voluntarily deserted the petitioner-husband without any valid reason and is therefore not entitled to maintenance. He further submitted that the petitioner-husband lost his job due to harassment and false cases foisted by the respondent No.2-wife and presently he had no sufficient means, earning only a meager income, making the quantum of maintenance and compensation excessive and unjust. He contended that there is no independent or documentary evidence to prove domestic violence or the income of the petitioner-husband, and that the respondent No.2-wife had already taken her belongings. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the judgment of the appellate Court by allowing this Criminal Revision Case.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 supported the concurrent findings of the courts below, contending that the petitioner-husband subjected the respondent No.2-wife to domestic