Introduction
The Delhi High Court delivered an important ruling on residence orders under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court clarified that a wife may qualify for a residence order even if she is not eligible for maintenance. The judgment came from a petition filed by a wife against family court orders. The case raises key points about how the DV Act protects women’s right to shelter and security. It also shows that the right to residence under the DV Act works independently of monetary support rights. This judgment will influence how future courts treat residence claims in domestic violence cases. The decision underlines that safe housing is a core protective remedy under the Act, separate from financial maintenance.
Facts Of The Case
In this case, the wife filed a domestic violence complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act. She alleged dowry-related harassment and verbal and emotional abuse by her husband. The magistrate granted an ad-interim maintenance order of Rs. 30,000 per month. Later, this amount was fixed at Rs. 15,000 per month for the wife and Rs. 15,000 for her minor son. Both parties appealed to the sessions court. The wife asked for a higher maintenance amount. The husband contested her maintenance claim, alleging that she had concealed her actual income. He argued she was not entitled to maintenance at all because of this concealment. The sessions court upheld the child’s maintenance of Rs. 15,000 but set aside the wife’s maintenance order.
At the time of these proceedings, the wife and her son were living at her brother’s home. They had vacated the previously rented house. Her stay at her brother’s house was without paying rent and purely on goodwill. The wife said she needed a residence order so she could rent a proper home for herself and her child. The trial and sessions courts agreed that she had not fully disclosed her income. They found that she held an MBA degree and had prior work experience. They concluded that she had financial resources that she did not disclose. Even so, she appealed on the point of her right to secure a home while the domestic violence case was ongoing.
The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, heard her appeal. The court agreed with the lower courts on the finding about her income disclosure. It found no error or perversity in the concurrent conclusion that she had suppressed material financial facts. However, the court took a different view on her need for a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act.
The judges held that the fact she may not be entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of income does not automatically deny her a residence order under the DV Act while the case is pending. The court emphasized that the right to residence is a separate protective remedy. The court said that a residence order can be granted even if the maintenance claim is not available or is set aside. This distinction is important. It makes clear that shelter and security do not depend on entitlement to financial maintenance alone.
What Court Says
Based on these principles, the High Court directed that the husband must pay Rs. 10,000 per month to help the wife secure rented accommodation for herself and the minor son. This payment is meant to cover housekeeping expenses so she and her child are not left without shelter. The court also instructed the trial court to speed up the domestic violence trial. It ordered that the evidence of both parties should be completed quickly without unnecessary delays.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that residence orders under the DV Act are protective in nature and do not hinge on a party’s eligibility for maintenance. It underscores that courts can grant a residence order to prevent homelessness and ensure basic safety during litigation. The decision also highlights how the DV Act’s remedies operate independently but with complementary goals. Maintenance aims to support the financial needs of the aggrieved person, while a residence order ensures secure housing. The court’s ruling confirms that one right cannot be denied simply because another is unavailable due to issues like income concealment. This clarification will matter in future domestic violence and family law cases where similar conflicts arise.
