Stridhan And Natal Family Assets Cannot Defeat Wife’s Maintenance Claim; Delhi High Court Dismisses Husband’s Plea, Upholds Interim Maintenance Under DV Act
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma dismissed a husband’s challenge and upheld interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month, clarifying that it includes the wife’s housing expenses. The dispute arose from the wife’s domestic violence complaint alleging abuse and retention of her jewellery, and her plea of unemployment and dependence. The husband opposed maintenance by citing the wife’s parental-side assets and transactions to suggest sufficient means. The Court held that stridhan, inherited property or gifts received from a woman’s parents or relatives cannot be treated as income to deny maintenance, which must be assessed by her present earning capacity and the marital standard of living rather than her natal family’s financial position.
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife following their marriage solemnized in December 2018. The wife alleged that after marriage she was subjected to physical, emotional, verbal, sexual, and economic abuse by the husband and his family members. She claimed that the husband misappropriated her jewellery, led a life of indulgence, and ultimately abandoned her, leaving her without financial support. She thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking various reliefs including interim maintenance.
During the proceedings, both parties were directed to file income affidavits. The wife asserted that she was unemployed and financially dependent, while the husband claimed that he had no income and that the wife possessed substantial assets and income from investments and properties. The trial court, after examining bank statements and income tax records, granted interim maintenance of ₹50,000 per month to the wife. The husband’s appeal against this order was dismissed by the sessions court, leading to the present revision petition before the High Court challenging the concurrent findings.
The Court observed that the husband’s claim of unemployment was not supported by the material on record and noted that “there are recurring financial transactions in the petitioner’s bank account” and that his income tax return reflected a gross income inconsistent with his plea of having “nil” income. It recorded that photographs placed on record depicted a lifestyle “wholly inconsistent with the financial hardship claimed by him.”
On the contention regarding the wife’s financial capacity, the Court stated that “the stridhan, inherited property, or gifts received by a woman from her parents or relatives cannot be construed as a source of income so as to defeat her claim for maintenance.” The Court further recorded that maintenance must be assessed with reference to “her present earning capacity and ability to sustain herself in the standard of living she was accustomed to during her marriage.”
Addressing the argument based on the wife’s educational qualifications, the Court stated that “the mere fact that the wife is educated or has some source of income does not, by itself, disentitle her from seeking maintenance.” It noted that a “mere potential or theoretical capacity to earn cannot substitute for real financial independence.”
The Court also observed that the earlier order relied upon by the husband pertained only to residence rights and “did not adjudicate upon or determine the question of maintenance.” It recorded that the parties had lived in high-end accommodations after marriage and that the husband belonged to a financially affluent family. The Court stated that while determining maintenance, consideration is given to “all legitimate sources of income, including those from business ventures, whether owned individually or as part of a family enterprise.”
The Court recorded that “this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Court.” It stated that “the quantum of ₹50,000/- per month awarded as interim maintenance is reasonable, just, and commensurate with the needs of the respondent-wife and the financial capacity of the petitioner.”
The Court clarified that “the said amount shall include any expenses towards the residence of respondent-wife also. The present petition is dismissed. The observations made herein are confined to the determination of interim maintenance and shall not prejudice the merits of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Ms. Janvi Vohra, Mr. Akshat Kaushik, Ms. Veenu Singh, Ms. Vaishnavi Saxena, Ms. Aamya, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, Advocate
Case Title: XXX v YYY
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:11147
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 51/2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
