In a significant judgment delivered in Sahiba Sodhi v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Delhi High Court has clarified important principles governing maintenance and residence rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act). The ruling highlights that while financial transparency is essential for claiming maintenance, a woman’s right to safe housing cannot be denied merely because she is found financially independent.
Background of the Case
Sahiba Sodhi and her husband were married in 2012 and have a minor son. In 2020, Sahiba filed a complaint under the PWDV Act, alleging domestic abuse and seeking maintenance and protection orders. At the initial stage, the trial court granted interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month for the wife and child, later revising it to ₹15,000 each.
Both parties challenged this order. The Sessions Court eventually set aside maintenance payable to the wife, holding that she had concealed her income, but continued maintenance for the minor child. Sahiba then approached the Delhi High Court challenging this decision
.
What the High Court Examined
The High Court closely examined income affidavits, bank statements, income tax returns, and other financial documents placed on record. It found that:
- The wife had not fully disclosed her income at the time she sought maintenance.
- She had worked during part of 2020 and earned income that was not mentioned in her initial affidavit.
- Her bank records showed unexplained credit entries and investments.
- Past income tax returns reflected earnings from rent and other sources.
- Interest earned from reinvested funds (including LIC maturities) also amounted to income.
Based on this material, the Court agreed with the lower courts that the wife had suppressed material financial information and therefore was not entitled to interim monetary maintenance for herself.
Key Legal Principle: Clean Hands Matter
The Court reiterated an important rule: maintenance is meant for a spouse who is unable to maintain herself, not for someone who withholds or conceals income. Courts rely heavily on truthful financial disclosure at the interim stage. Suppression of facts undermines the fairness of the process and can disentitle a claimant from monetary relief.
Crucial Relief Still Granted: Right to Residence
However, the judgment does not stop at denying maintenance. In a crucial and balanced move, the High Court held that denial of maintenance does not automatically mean denial of housing rights.
The Court noted that Sahiba and her child were living at her brother’s house out of goodwill, without any secure or independent accommodation. Under Section 19 of the PWDV Act, an aggrieved woman is entitled to residence rights, including alternate accommodation or rent, even if she is not granted maintenance.
Accordingly, the Court directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month towards rental expenses for the wife and child. The maintenance of ₹15,000 per month for the minor child was left untouched.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for several reasons:
- It reinforces honesty in maintenance proceedings
Courts expect full and frank disclosure of income. Concealment can defeat a maintenance claim. - It protects children unequivocally
A child’s right to maintenance is independent and non-negotiable. - It separates maintenance from housing rights
Even if a woman is financially capable, her right to secure accommodation under the PWDV Act remains intact. - It promotes speedy justice
The Court also directed the trial court to expedite the case, noting that prolonged interim proceedings defeat the purpose of the law.
The Larger Message
The judgment sends a clear message:
- The law will not reward concealment or misuse of maintenance provisions.
- At the same time, the law will not allow women and children to be rendered homeless during ongoing domestic violence proceedings.
By striking this balance, the Delhi High Court has reinforced both accountability and compassion, staying true to the spirit of the Domestic Violence Act.