The Delhi High Court held that mere allegations of adultery, without credible proof, cannot be used as a ground to deny interim maintenance to a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court clarified that the object of the Act is to provide immediate and effective relief to women facing domestic violence, including financial support during the pendency of proceedings, and that such relief cannot be refused solely on the basis of disputed allegations raised by the husband.
The case arose from a challenge filed by a husband against orders passed by the Magistrate’s Court and affirmed by the Sessions Court, which had directed him to pay interim maintenance to his wife. The husband argued that the wife was living in adultery and therefore was not entitled to maintenance. He relied on certain photographs and claims of a live-in relationship to support his allegations. The wife, however, denied the allegations and disputed the authenticity of the materials relied upon by the husband, asserting that the claims were false and unproven.
The High Court examined the statutory framework of the Domestic Violence Act and noted that, unlike provisions governing maintenance under other laws, the Act does not contain any explicit bar on granting maintenance to a woman merely because allegations of adultery have been raised against her. The court observed that allegations of adultery involve disputed questions of fact which require proper adjudication through evidence and cross-examination, and such issues cannot be conclusively determined at the interim stage.
The court emphasised that interim maintenance is meant to ensure that an aggrieved woman is not left without means of sustenance while legal proceedings are ongoing. At this stage, the court is only required to form a prima facie view based on the available material, and not to conduct a detailed trial or arrive at final conclusions on contested allegations. Denying interim maintenance on the basis of unverified accusations would defeat the protective purpose of the legislation.
The High Court further noted that when both parties have levelled serious allegations against each other, it is necessary for the trial court to adjudicate the matter expeditiously so that the truth can be determined after a full appreciation of evidence. It observed that disputed claims such as adultery cannot be presumed to be true without trial and cannot automatically disentitle a woman from receiving interim financial support.
The court also clarified that granting interim maintenance does not mean that the husband’s allegations are rejected outright. It held that if, after completion of the trial, the court finds that the wife was indeed living in adultery and is not entitled to maintenance, appropriate consequences may follow in accordance with law. This includes the possibility of directing repayment of the interim maintenance amount received, along with applicable interest, thereby safeguarding the interests of both parties.
By refusing to interfere with the interim maintenance orders passed by the lower courts, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed that unproven allegations cannot override the statutory intent of the Domestic Violence Act. The judgment underscores that interim relief under the Act is a temporary protective measure, focused on preventing financial hardship, and that final rights and liabilities must be determined only after a full and fair trial.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.