Wife not entitled to maintenance due to concealment of income but entitled to expenses towards securing rented accommodation

Delhi High Court Rules on Maintenance: Wife Denied Monetary Support Due to Concealed Income, Secures Accommodation Aid, Court emphasizes statutory duty to provide residence for minor child; wife to receive Rs. 10,000 per month for housing

In a pivotal judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, the court addressed crucial aspects of interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The case, Sahiba Sodhi v. State NCT of Delhi, revolved around the financial entitlements of a wife who allegedly suppressed her income details while seeking maintenance.

The petitioner, Sahiba Sodhi, challenged an order passed by the Sessions Court which denied her monetary maintenance on grounds of income concealment, although her minor child was granted Rs. 15,000 per month. The High Court scrutinized the lower court's decision and found no error in denying her monetary maintenance due to her failure to disclose true income, as she is highly qualified with an MBA and has prior work experience.

Despite this, the High Court recognized her right to secure adequate housing, emphasizing the husband's statutory obligation to ensure residence for the minor child. Consequently, the court ordered the husband to pay Rs. 10,000 monthly towards securing rented accommodation for the petitioner and her child.

The court's decision highlighted the necessity for transparency in income affidavits and underscored the importance of the statutory duty to provide housing for minor children, regardless of disputes over monetary maintenance. This ruling underscores the delicate balance courts must maintain in adjudicating maintenance cases, ensuring that the welfare of children remains paramount.

The case originated from a complaint filed by Sahiba Sodhi under the PWDV Act, alleging harassment and abuse by her husband, Bikram Jeet Singh. The trial court initially granted interim maintenance, which was later contested by both parties. The Sessions Court upheld maintenance for the child but denied it to the wife, prompting the revision petition in the High Court.

Justice Sharma’s ruling not only modifies the previous order to include residence expenses but also directs the trial court to expedite the trial process, recognizing the prolonged nature of the proceedings since 2020.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the legal intricacies involved in family law and the courts' role in ensuring fairness while upholding statutory obligations. It also reflects the judiciary's commitment to expedite legal processes to provide timely justice.

Bottom Line:

Wife not entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of income but entitled to expenses towards securing rented accommodation for herself and minor child.

Statutory provisions: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 19(1)(f), 23, 29

Sahiba Sodhi v. State NCT of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2821772