Concealment of Income Bars Maintenance, Not Residence Rights Under the Domestic Violence Act
Delhi High Court explains that while hiding income can lead to denial of maintenance, it does not take away a woman’s right to residence under the DV Act.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a remedial statute intended to secure substantive justice for women facing domestic abuse. It provides a comprehensive framework of civil reliefs, including protection orders, residence orders, monetary reliefs, custody orders, and compensation. However, courts have consistently emphasised that these remedies are equitable in nature and must be invoked with clean hands.
A recurring issue before Indian courts is whether a woman who conceals her income or suppresses material financial facts can still claim relief under the DV Act. While concealment has been held to disentitle an aggrieved woman from monetary maintenance, an important and often overlooked distinction arises with respect to residence rights.
This distinction was authoritatively clarified by the Delhi High Court in Sahiba Sodhi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., where the Court held that concealment of income may bar maintenance but does not automatically defeat the statutory right to residence under Section 19 of the DV Act.
Factual Background
The parties were married in 2012 and had a minor son born in 2013. The wife instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act in 2020, alleging domestic violence and seeking multiple reliefs, including maintenance and residence. Initially, the Trial Court granted ad interim maintenance to both the wife and the minor child.
Subsequently, disputes arose regarding the wife’s financial disclosures. The husband alleged that the wife was a qualified professional holding dual MBA degrees, had worked during the subsistence of marriage, earned income through employment and private tuitions, and had deliberately concealed these facts. Bank statements, income tax returns, and documentary material were placed on record to substantiate these allegations.
The Trial Court, and later the Sessions Court, found that the wife had suppressed material facts regarding her income. Consequently, while maintenance for the minor child was upheld, maintenance granted to the wife was set aside.
Aggrieved, the wife approached the Delhi High Court, not only challenging the denial of maintenance but also contending that she had been left without any secured residence after the appellate order.
Issues Before the High Court
Delhi High Court was called upon to determine:
- Whether concealment of income disentitles a wife from claiming interim maintenance under the DV Act.
- Whether such concealment also bars her entitlement to a residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act.
- Whether residence rights are dependent upon the grant of monetary maintenance.
Concealment of Income and Maintenance: Settled Position
The Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that maintenance is a conditional relief. A claimant must demonstrate an inability to maintain herself and must make full and truthful disclosure of income and assets.
Relying upon Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the Court reiterated that maintenance is not an automatic entitlement and is contingent upon financial incapacity. Where a party suppresses income, files incomplete affidavits, or approaches the court without candour, equitable relief can be denied.
In the present case, the High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Sessions Court. The record showed repeated non-disclosure, unexplained credit entries, omission of income tax returns, and belated production of documents only after judicial directions. These circumstances justified the denial of maintenance to the wife.
Thus, the Court upheld the principle that concealment of income bars maintenance.
Distinct Nature of Residence Rights Under the DV Act
The most significant contribution of this judgment lies in its articulation of the independent nature of residence rights under the DV Act.
Section 19 of the DV Act empowers the Magistrate to pass residence orders, including directions to the respondent to:
- Restrain dispossession from the shared household,
- Secure alternate accommodation of a similar standard, or
- Pay rent for such accommodation.
The Court emphasised that residence rights flow from the statutory recognition of the woman’s right to shelter and protection from homelessness. These rights are not contingent upon her financial dependence or entitlement to maintenance.
The High Court categorically held that denial of maintenance due to concealment of income does not, by itself, extinguish the right to residence.
Residence as a Component of Dignity and Protection
The Court grounded its reasoning in the object and purpose of the DV Act. The right to residence is not merely an economic benefit but a facet of dignity, security, and protection against destitution.
In the present case, it was undisputed that the wife and the minor child were residing at the brother’s house without paying rent, purely out of goodwill. Such an arrangement, the Court observed, cannot be treated as secure or permanent accommodation.
Importantly, the presence of a minor child weighed heavily with the Court. The statutory obligation of the father to ensure proper shelter for the child could not be diluted merely because the mother had concealed income.
Maintenance and Residence: Conceptual Separation
The judgment draws a clear conceptual separation between:
- Maintenance under Section 20, which is compensatory and needs-based, and
- Residence orders under Section 19 are protective and preventive.
Maintenance aims to ensure financial parity and subsistence. Residence orders aim to prevent homelessness and vulnerability arising from domestic violence.
The Court cautioned against conflating the two reliefs, noting that doing so would defeat the remedial character of the DV Act.
Relief Granted by the High Court
Balancing equities, the High Court modified the impugned order. While it declined to restore maintenance for the wife, it directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month towards rental expenses to secure alternate accommodation for the wife and the minor child.
Maintenance of ₹15,000 per month granted to the child remained undisturbed, as it was not challenged.
The Court also directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings, noting that the litigation had been pending since 2020.
Significance of the Judgment
This decision is significant for several reasons.
- First, it reinforces judicial intolerance towards the suppression of financial information in maintenance proceedings. Courts will not reward litigants who approach them without candour.
- Second, it clarifies that residence rights are not punitive or conditional. Even where a woman’s conduct disentitles her from maintenance, the law does not permit her to be rendered homeless.
- Third, it strengthens child-centric jurisprudence under the DV Act. The obligation to provide shelter to a minor child remains paramount.
- Fourth, it offers guidance to Trial Courts to carefully segregate reliefs under different provisions of the DV Act rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach.
Conclusion
The ruling in Sahiba Sodhi v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. marks an important development in domestic violence jurisprudence. It sends a clear message that while courts will not tolerate dishonesty in financial disclosures, the protective shield of the DV Act cannot be withdrawn entirely on that ground alone.
Concealment of income may bar maintenance, but it does not extinguish the right to residence. The DV Act, as a social welfare legislation, continues to protect women and children from homelessness, vulnerability, and indignity, even while enforcing procedural fairness.
This nuanced approach preserves the balance between equity and statutory protection, ensuring that justice under the DV Act remains both principled and humane.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
