Sahiba Sodhi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court | Criminal Revision Petition No. 917 of 2024
Judgment pronounced on: 09 December 2025
Coram: Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Headnote

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Interim maintenance — Concealment of income — Effect — Right to residence — Distinct from monetary maintenance — Highly qualified spouse — Earning capacity — Suppression of material facts disentitles claimant from interim maintenance — However, denial of maintenance does not ipso facto bar grant of residence order or rent for alternate accommodation — Minor child’s right to maintenance independent and unaffected — Courts must balance financial accountability with statutory protection of housing and dignity.

Facts

The petitioner–wife and respondent–husband were married in 2012 according to Sikh rites. A male child was born out of the wedlock in 2013 and remains in the custody of the wife. Following matrimonial discord, the wife filed a complaint in 2020 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act), alleging harassment and abuse, and seeking maintenance and other reliefs.

The Trial Court initially granted ad‑interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to the wife and child. Subsequently, by order dated 08 April 2022, the Trial Court fixed interim maintenance of ₹15,000 per month each for the wife and the minor child. Both parties preferred appeals under Section 29 of the PWDV Act.

The Sessions Court, by order dated 05 April 2024, set aside the interim maintenance awarded to the wife on the ground that she had concealed her income and upheld maintenance granted to the minor child. Aggrieved, the wife approached the Delhi High Court by way of the present criminal revision petition.

Issues

1. Whether a wife who has concealed her income and earning capacity is entitled to interim maintenance under the PWDV Act.
2. Whether denial of interim maintenance to the wife automatically disentitles her from claiming residential relief under Section 19 of the PWDV Act.
3. Whether the minor child’s entitlement to maintenance is affected by the mother’s conduct.

Decision

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the revision petition. It upheld the finding of the Sessions Court denying interim maintenance to the wife due to concealment of income. However, it modified the impugned order by granting the wife ₹10,000 per month towards rental expenses for alternate accommodation for herself and the minor child. The maintenance of ₹15,000 per month awarded to the child was left undisturbed.

Reasoning

The Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court that the petitioner had failed to make a truthful disclosure of her income. The record showed that she had worked during part of 2020, had undisclosed credit entries and investments in her bank accounts, and had declared income in previous income‑tax returns, which contradicted her claim of having no independent source of income. Her explanations were largely oral and unsupported by documentary evidence.

Relying on settled principles, the Court held that interim maintenance is conditional upon the claimant’s inability to maintain herself. A party who suppresses material financial facts cannot seek equitable relief from the Court. The petitioner, being an MBA graduate with prior work experience and demonstrated financial resources, was therefore not entitled to interim monetary maintenance.

However, the Court made an important distinction between the right to maintenance and the right to residence. It observed that Section 19 of the PWDV Act empowers courts to secure alternate accommodation or rent for an aggrieved woman. The petitioner and her child were residing at her brother’s house without any legal or financial security. The Court held that denial of maintenance due to concealment of income does not automatically extinguish a woman’s statutory right to housing.

The Court further reiterated that the obligation of the husband to maintain the minor child is absolute and independent of disputes relating to the wife’s entitlement.

Ratio Decidendi

A claimant who suppresses material facts relating to income and earning capacity is not entitled to interim maintenance; however, denial of monetary maintenance does not, by itself, disentitle an aggrieved woman from seeking residential relief or rent for alternate accommodation under Section 19 of the PWDV Act, particularly when a minor child resides with her.

Significance of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle of full and frank financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings, while simultaneously protecting the statutory right to residence under the PWDV Act. It draws a clear distinction between financial support and housing security, ensuring that women and children are not rendered homeless due to technical disqualification from maintenance. The ruling strikes a balance between preventing misuse of maintenance provisions and upholding the protective object of domestic violence legislation.

End Notes / Case Laws Referred

1. Rajnish v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 — Interim maintenance is conditional upon the claimant spouse having no sufficient independent income to maintain herself or himself.
2. Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal, 2000 (3) MPLJ 100 — Law does not encourage capable spouses to remain idle solely to claim maintenance.
3. Matrimonial Appeal (FC) No. 248/2019, Delhi High Court, decided on 12.09.2023 — Highly qualified spouse with earning capacity and suppressed income not entitled to maintenance.