SHIMLA: <\/em>In a recent judgment, Justice Sandeep Sharma<\/strong> of the Himachal Pradesh High Court<\/strong> dismissed a husband\u2019s plea and upheld maintenance granted to the wife under the Domestic Violence Act<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose when the wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act<\/strong>, alleging harassment, dowry demands, physical violence, and complete financial neglect <\/strong>after marriage. She stated that despite the husband earning around \u20b972,000 per month in the Indian Army<\/strong>, he failed to provide even basic maintenance<\/a>, forcing her into a vulnerable condition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Initially, the trial court rejected her complaint on the ground that she had allegedly married the petitioner during the subsistence of an earlier marriage<\/strong>. However, the Sessions Court reversed this decision<\/strong> and granted her \u20b910,000 per month as maintenance along with \u20b95,000 per month towards rental accommodation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Challenging this, the husband approached the High Court, arguing that the wife had concealed her earlier marriage<\/strong> and therefore should not be entitled to any relief. However, the Court carefully examined the evidence and found that the alleged prior marriage was not conclusively proven<\/strong> in accordance with law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court made it clear that once the marriage between the parties is admitted, the husband cannot escape his legal obligations<\/strong> merely by raising allegations about a previous marriage without valid proof. The Court emphasized that unless the marriage is formally annulled by a competent court, the wife continues to be legally recognized<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court relied on settled legal principles and held that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTill the time marriage inter-se husband and wife is anulled by the competent court of law, parties to lis continue to be legally wedded husband and wife.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Further strengthening its reasoning, the Court observed that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOnce marriage inter-se petitioner and respondent No.1 is not in dispute, rather stands admitted by the petitioner\u2026 petitioner herein could not have escaped the liability to pay maintenance on the ground of earlier marriage.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n On the issue of domestic violence, the Court noted that the wife successfully proved physical and mental harassment<\/strong>, including dowry demands and abuse<\/strong>, which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. It accepted that she had no independent source of income and required financial support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also highlighted that even if the husband claimed that the wife was earning, such claims must be properly proved<\/strong>, which was not done in this case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly, the Court also remarked on the adequacy of maintenance, stating that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBy no stretch of imagination, amount of Rs.10,000\/-, can be said to be sufficient for respondent-wife to sustain herself,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Indicating rising living costs and financial realities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Court upheld the Sessions Court\u2019s order and dismissed the husband\u2019s petition<\/strong>, confirming both maintenance and rental support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This judgment again reflects how mere allegations or disputes around validity of marriage are often not sufficient to protect a husband from immediate financial liability<\/strong>. Unless there is clear and legally proven evidence, courts tend to proceed on admitted relationships, placing the burden of maintenance on the husband even in contested matrimonial situations<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws & Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Article 227, Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Gives High Court power to supervise lower courts<\/td> Husband used this to challenge Sessions Court order<\/td><\/tr> Section 12, Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Allows wife to file complaint for protection, maintenance, residence<\/td> Wife filed main complaint under this section<\/td><\/tr> Section 29, Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/strong><\/td> Provides right to appeal against Magistrate\u2019s order<\/td> Wife used this to challenge trial court rejection<\/td><\/tr> Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Civil law providing protection, residence, and maintenance to women<\/td> Basis for granting maintenance and rent<\/td><\/tr> Supreme Court Judgment: Deoki Panjhiyara v. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad (2013) 2 SCC 137<\/strong><\/td> Holds that marriage remains valid until legally annulled<\/td> Relied upon to reject husband\u2019s defence of prior marriage<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n