Adultery Allegation Cannot Defeat Maintenance Without Proof: Delhi High Court Refuses to Deny Interim Relief to Wife Under PWDV Act

“Unproven Accusations and Morphed Photographs Cannot Determine Maintenance Rights at Interim Stage” — In a significant judgment reiterating the rights of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Delhi High Court upheld ₹26,000/- monthly interim maintenance granted to a woman despite her estranged husband’s allegations that she was “living in adultery.”

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma clarified that mere allegations of adultery — especially at the interim stage — cannot disentitle a woman from maintenance unless proven after trial.

“At the stage of interim maintenance, such disputed questions of fact — including allegations of adultery — cannot be decided without evidence. A woman cannot be declared unworthy of maintenance based on unverified claims and character assassination,” the Court observed, dismissing the revision petition.

“PWDV Act Does Not Bar Relief on Adultery Like Section 125(4) CrPC” — Court Highlights Broader Scope of Domestic Violence Act

The husband had argued that his wife was “living in adultery,” and therefore not an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) of the PWDV Act, relying on certain photographs purportedly showing her in a compromising position.

However, the Court drew a clear distinction between Section 125 CrPC, which bars maintenance to a wife “living in adultery” under subsection (4), and the PWDV Act, which does not contain any such express bar.

“Unlike Section 125(4) CrPC, the PWDV Act does not contain a statutory bar denying maintenance based on adultery. Even if conduct is questionable, it is a matter of evidence at trial, not at interim stage,” Justice Sharma held.

Further, the photographs were disputed by the wife as fabricated and morphed, and the Court noted:

“The genuineness and veracity of such photographs can only be examined after parties lead evidence. Courts cannot rely on unverified digital images in an era of deepfakes.”

“Both Spouses Have Accused Each Other of Extra-Marital Affairs” — Court Refuses to Prejudge Merits Before Trial

The Court acknowledged that both parties had made serious allegations against each other. While the husband accused the wife of adultery, the wife had filed chats alleging her husband’s own sexually explicit conversations with other women.

Justice Sharma observed that such mutual accusations involved disputed questions of fact and reiterated that interim maintenance is granted on prima facie satisfaction of the court:

“This is not the stage to adjudicate on the moral character of either party. The law presumes innocence, not guilt, especially where digital evidence is contested.”

“Character Assassination and Vulgar Language Amount to Domestic Violence” — Court Affirms Wife’s Status as ‘Aggrieved Person’

On the allegations of domestic violence, the Court noted that the wife had placed WhatsApp chats where the husband repeatedly called her a “prostitute” and used abusive language. She also alleged physical, sexual, emotional and economic abuse, including being forced to leave her job, false theft allegations, and two miscarriages due to cruelty.

The Court found that these allegations, supported by the Domestic Incident Report filed by the Protection Officer, prima facie justified her claim as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the PWDV Act.

“When abuse includes name-calling, humiliation, economic deprivation and physical cruelty, the threshold of domestic violence is crossed. Interim relief cannot be withheld merely on the basis of contested adultery claims,” the Court noted.

“Bank Account Reveals Credits of ₹28.45 Lakh — Income Cannot Be Understated” — Husband’s Claim of ₹25,000/Month Income Rejected

The petitioner had also challenged the quantum of maintenance, claiming he earned only ₹25,000 per month. However, his own bank statements showed credits of ₹28,45,120 over three years, and ITRs reflected incomes over ₹6.5 lakh (AY 2014-15) and ₹3.3 lakh (AY 2019-20).

His explanation — that the credits were proceeds of FDs and PPFs from his parents — was found to be unsubstantiated.

The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and Sessions Court on income estimation:

“Self-serving explanations cannot displace concrete financial records. Courts below have not committed any illegality or perversity in fixing interim maintenance at ₹26,000/- per month.”

“Refund With Interest If Adultery Proven” — High Court Protects Rights of Both Parties

Balancing interests, the Court directed that if, at trial, the wife is found to be living in adultery, she must refund the entire amount received as interim maintenance, along with 6% interest per annum.

“The respondent-wife shall file an affidavit before the Trial Court undertaking to return the entire interim maintenance with interest, if ultimately found disentitled on account of adultery,” Justice Sharma directed.

The Magistrate was also ordered to expedite trial and conclude proceedings within one year.

The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that interim maintenance under the PWDV Act is a statutory right which cannot be defeated by unproven allegations. It warned against using the litigation process for character defamation and emphasized the limited scope of revisional interference in interim relief orders.

“Prima facie allegations of domestic violence and financial incapacity suffice for interim relief. Allegations of infidelity, especially when both spouses level them, must await judicial scrutiny at trial.”

Date of Decision: 4 February 2026