The Delhi High Court has held that a husband is legally obligated to maintain his wife, even if it is her second marriage.
In her ruling delivered on Tuesday, justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that Domestic Violence Act makes no distinction between a first and subsequent marriage when it comes to entitlement to maintenance.
The verdict was delivered in a plea filed by the husband against a family court’s order directing him to pay an enhanced maintenance of ₹1 lakh to his wife.
In his plea, the husband had asserted that the woman was not entitled to maintenance since it was her second marriage, and that she had voluntarily abandoned him despite him accepting her along with her two sons from her first marriage.
On the other hand, the woman had asserted that she married the man based on his assurance and promises of care and fatherly affection for her children. However, she alleged that she was compelled to leave due to his insults directed at her children and acts of physical abuse.
Rejecting the husband’s contention, justice Sharma in her ruling 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 of maintenance.”
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the husband’s contention, justice Sharma in her ruling 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 of maintenance.”
{{/usCountry}}The husband had approached the high court against the family court’s April 2024 order directing him to pay ₹1 lakh to her as maintenance, enhanced from ₹33,000.
In her 10-page ruling, the judge, while upholding the family court’s order, also shot down the man’s contention that she was not entitled to maintenance since she was an able-bodied person and was capable of earning.
Justice Sharma said, “While capability to earn may be a relevant factor, it must be demonstrated that the wife is gainfully employed or receiving income sufficient to maintain herself, which is not the case here. The income affidavit filed by the respondent wife reveals a meagre income of ₹12,000 per month, with remaining expenses reportedly met through loans or borrowings.”