Can a husband avoid giving residence and maintenance to his wife by claiming she earns a small amount herself? The Himachal Pradesh High Court has now given a clear answer.
SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld maintenance and residence rights of a woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, while dismissing a revision petition filed by her husband, a retired Army officer.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla was hearing a plea filed by a retired Naib Subedar challenging earlier orders passed by the trial court and appellate court in favour of his wife.
The High Court upheld the earlier orders granting the wife residence rights and total maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month.
During the proceedings, the husband claimed that the wife was earning around Rs 3,000 to Rs 4,000 per month through tailoring work. However, the High Court clarified that a woman cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is trying to survive through small jobs.
“The learned trial Court had rightly awarded the maintenance at the rate of Rs 1000 per month (additional to Rs 2000) to the applicant. She was compelled to reside separately from the respondent, and the respondent was duty-bound to provide residence to her. Therefore, the learned trial court had rightly passed an order for providing the residence. There was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial court; hence, the appeal was dismissed,” the court observed in its May 4 order.
The High Court also noted that the husband admitted he was living with another woman. According to the husband, the second marriage had allegedly taken place at the suggestion of the wife herself.
The court further observed that the wife was already receiving Rs 2,000 per month earlier, but the amount was “hardly sufficient” considering rising living expenses and minimum wages fixed by the state government.
Importantly, the High Court reiterated that there is no legal bar on claiming maintenance under different laws simultaneously. The court held that the wife was legally entitled to seek relief under the Domestic Violence Act as well.
The court also found that the husband failed to prove that the wife had any independent accommodation available to her. Because of this, the residence order passed in favour of the wife was upheld.
The dispute arose after the wife filed an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She stated that she had been married to the husband for nearly 30 years according to Hindu customs and traditions.
According to the wife, the husband began humiliating and harassing her soon after marriage. She also alleged that he developed extramarital relations and later forced her out of the matrimonial home.
The wife further claimed that the husband had stopped providing financial support to her.
Earlier, in separate maintenance proceedings, a court had already directed the husband to pay Rs 2,000 per month to the wife.
The woman told the court that she was currently staying at her parental home, which was not sufficient for her residence needs, forcing her to live in rented accommodation.
She also stated that she was unemployed while the husband, being a retired Naib Subedar from the Indian Army, was receiving pension benefits and income from agricultural land.
According to the wife, the husband earned more than Rs 38,000 per month through pension and agricultural activities combined.
She sought monetary relief, residence rights and protection orders under the Domestic Violence Act.
In January 2016, the trial court partly allowed her plea and granted a protection order, residence order and additional maintenance of Rs 1,000 per month under the DV Act. The appellate court later upheld that decision.
The husband then approached the High Court through a criminal revision petition challenging these findings.
Appearing for the husband, advocate B S Chauhan argued that the wife was already receiving Rs 2,000 monthly maintenance, which according to him was sufficient for her needs.
He also argued that the husband had responsibilities towards his second wife and children, which the family court allegedly failed to appreciate.
The husband further claimed that the wife had left the matrimonial home without any valid reason and that the petition filed by her was false and intended to harass him.
On the other hand, advocate Atul Verma, appearing for the state, argued that the husband’s admission regarding the second marriage itself justified the wife living separately and claiming maintenance.
It was also argued that the wife had no independent residence and the family court had correctly passed the residence order in her favour.
Finally, the High Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition and upheld the orders passed by the lower courts.
Important Laws And Sections Explained
| LAW / SECTION | WHAT IT MEANS | HOW IT WAS USED IN THIS CASE |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Special law giving protection, residence rights and monetary relief to women alleging domestic violence | Wife filed the case under this law seeking residence, maintenance and protection |
| Residence Order | Court can direct that a wife should not be left homeless and may be given right to residence | High Court upheld residence rights in favour of wife |
| Monetary Relief | Financial support for expenses and survival | Wife was granted additional Rs 1,000 under DV Act apart from earlier maintenance |
| Protection Order | Court order restraining harassment, violence or interference | Trial court granted protection order in wife’s favour |
| Maintenance Rights | Financial support payable by husband under different family laws | Court held maintenance can be claimed under multiple laws simultaneously |
| Separate Residence Due to Second Marriage | Wife can legally stay separately if husband marries or lives with another woman | Husband’s admission regarding another woman strengthened wife’s claim |
| Concurrent Findings | When both lower courts give similar findings | High Court refused to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts |
| Criminal Revision Petition | Challenge before High Court against lower court orders | Husband filed revision petition challenging maintenance and residence order |
Case Details
| PARTICULARS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | Raj Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh & Another |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Bench | Justice Rakesh Kainthla |
| Case Type | Criminal Revision Petition |
| Petitioner | Raj Kumar (Retired Naib Subedar) |
| Respondents | State of Himachal Pradesh & Wife |
| Date of High Court Order | 4 May 2026 |
| Counsels for Petitioner | B S Chauhan |
| Counsel for State | Atul Verma |
Key Takeaways
- Even after long separation and a second family, a husband can still be legally forced to maintain his first wife indefinitely.
- Courts continue to hold that minor earnings by a wife are not enough to deny maintenance claims against husbands.
- Multiple maintenance claims under different laws remain legally permissible, creating continuous financial exposure for men.
- Admission of a second relationship or second marriage often becomes a strong factor against husbands in matrimonial litigation.
- Residence rights under the DV Act can continue even when the wife is already living separately for years, expanding long-term liability on husbands.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.