Domestic Violence Act Doesn't Distinguish Between First Or Subsequent Marriage For Maintenance: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance.

While dealing with a maintenance dispute, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma rejected a husband's submission that the wife's marriage with him was her second marriage and that she had children from a previous marriage.

The Court dismissed the husband's plea challenging a trial court order directing him to pay Rs.1,00,000 per month as enhanced maintenance to the wife.

It was the husband's case that his income, as reflected in his income tax returns, had been consistently decreasing over the years, and that he had no family support to care for his daily and medical needs.

It was submitted that the husband required the assistance of a domestic help, driver, cleaner, and dresser, and is compelled to seek treatment from private medical institutions, resulting in substantial monthly expenditure.

It was further argued that the marriage between the parties was a second marriage, and the husband had accepted the wife along with her two sons from her first marriage, demonstrating his good faith and intentions.

Rejecting the plea, the Court noted that the husband was maintaining a high standard of living and had the financial capacity to bear the awarded maintenance.

It was observed that the husband had no dependents other than the wife and that the Trial Court had justifiably held that the wife was entitled to enjoy the same standard of living, especially in light of the fact that his own disclosures reflected monthly expenses in excess of ₹1.5 to ₹2 lakhs.

The Court further found merit in the wife's grievance that the husband had attempted to alienate his properties during the pendency of the proceedings, allegedly to defeat her legitimate claims.

It said that such a conduct gave further credence to the apprehension of the wife and undermined the husband's credibility.

Calling husband's submission that it was their second marriage as wholly misconceived, the Court said:

“The Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance. Once the petitioner voluntarily entered into the marriage and accepted the respondent and her children, he cannot now use that as a defence to resist his statutory obligations.”

Title: X v. Y

Click here to read order