The Delhi High Court has ruled that a wife who deliberately conceals her income and employment status is not entitled to monetary maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2012 (PWDV Act). However, the Court clarified that such concealment does not absolve the husband of his statutory duty to provide a residence for his wife and minor child.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma disposed of a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner-wife against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court’s decision to set aside the monetary maintenance awarded to the wife due to her suppression of material financial facts. However, the Court modified the order to the extent of granting ₹10,000 per month to the petitioner specifically towards securing rented accommodation, recognizing her independent right to residence under Section 19 of the PWDV Act.
Background of the Case
The parties were married on February 19, 2012, and a son was born on January 21, 2013. In September 2020, the petitioner-wife instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, alleging harassment and dowry demands. She stated that she had been residing separately with her minor son since July 22, 2020.
The Trial Court, vide order dated November 9, 2020, initially granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month. Subsequently, on April 8, 2022, the Trial Court modified this to grant interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month each to the wife and the minor son. Both parties challenged this order before the Sessions Court.
By an order dated April 5, 2024, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the wife’s appeal for enhancement and allowed the husband’s appeal, thereby setting aside the maintenance granted to the wife while upholding the maintenance for the minor child. The Sessions Court observed that the wife had concealed her source of income and employment. Aggrieved by this, the wife approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner-Wife’s Contentions: The counsel for the petitioner argued that although the petitioner holds dual MBA degrees, she is currently unemployed. It was submitted that she was employed for a brief period of three months, but her services were terminated due to ongoing litigation. She contended that she has the sole responsibility of the minor child and lacks parental support following the demise of her parents.
Regarding the allegations of concealment, the petitioner argued that the transactions in her bank accounts were carried out by the respondent-husband and that the substantial credits reflected maturity amounts from LIC policies and recurring deposits left by her deceased parents. She denied earning income from private tuitions (“S.S. Study Circle”) and asserted that she is currently residing at her brother’s house out of his goodwill.
Respondent-Husband’s Contentions: The counsel for the respondent-husband contended that the petitioner is a well-qualified, able-bodied woman who deliberately concealed her employment with “Clevora Global Outsourcing Services LLP” and her income from private tuitions. It was argued that she disclosed her employment details only after the respondent filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
The respondent highlighted that the petitioner’s self-filed Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2025-2026 reflected an income of ₹17,000 per month. It was submitted that the petitioner had withheld complete bank statements and that her financial records, including fixed deposits, proved independent financial resources.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court, upon perusing the record, noted that the petitioner had failed to disclose her employment between April 2020 and July 2020 in her initial affidavit filed in November 2020. The Court observed that she admitted to working only after the Trial Court directed her to file bank statements.
On Concealment of Income: The Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the courts below regarding the suppression of material facts. Justice Sharma noted:
“It is trite that a party who suppresses material information regarding his or her income cannot claim maintenance on the premise that he or she is unable to maintain herself.”
The Court pointed out that the petitioner’s ITRs for previous years (FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19) showed gross incomes exceeding ₹3,00,000 and ₹3,50,000 respectively, contrary to her claims of having no source of income. The Court held:
“These circumstances, at the interim stage, provided sufficient basis for the learned Trial Court to draw a prima facie inference that the petitioner had additional sources of income which she had not disclosed in her income affidavit, and thus, suppressed material facts relating to her financial capacity.”
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Rajnish v. Neha (2021), the Court reiterated that interim maintenance is conditional on the applicant having no independent income sufficient for support. The Court also referred to the Delhi High Court’s reliance on Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, observing that Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is “not meant to create an Army of Idle people waiting for a dole.”
On Right to Residence: While denying monetary maintenance, the High Court distinguished the right to residence under the PWDV Act. The Court observed that the petitioner and her child were residing at her brother’s house purely out of goodwill.
Justice Sharma held:
“The fact that the petitioner may not be entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of income does not, ipso facto, in the interregnum, disentitle her to a residence order under Section 19 of the PWDV Act.”
The Court emphasized the husband’s statutory duty under Section 19(1)(f) of the PWDV Act to secure alternate accommodation for the aggrieved woman or pay rent for the same.
Decision
The High Court modified the impugned order dated April 5, 2024. While upholding the denial of maintenance for personal expenses, the Court directed the respondent-husband to pay ₹10,000 per month to the petitioner as expenses towards securing rented accommodation for herself and the minor child.
The interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month for the minor child remains undisturbed as it was not challenged.
Additionally, noting the delay in proceedings—where the complaint pertains to the year 2020—the High Court directed the Trial Court to expedite the trial by “granting shorter dates and ensuring that evidence of both parties is concluded without unnecessary delay.”
The petition was disposed of with the above directions.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sahiba Sodhi v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr.
- Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 917/2024 & CRL.M.A. 28189/2024
- Citation: 2025:DHC:11064
- Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
