Latest JudgementProtection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Sahiba Sodhi v. The State (NCT of Delhi) & Another, 2025

It reaffirmed that the PWDV Act provides multiple, independent reliefs, and denial of one does not negate entitlement to others.

Delhi High Court·19 December 2025

Court

Delhi High Court

Date of Decision

19 December 2025

Judges

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 Section 19, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Facts of the Case

The wife filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act alleging dowry-related harassment and verbal and emotional abuse by her husband.
The Magistrate initially granted ad-interim maintenance of ₹30,000 per month in favour of the wife.
Subsequently, interim maintenance was fixed at ₹15,000 per month each for the wife and the minor son.
Both parties challenged the Magistrate’s order before the Sessions Court.
The wife sought enhancement of maintenance, while the husband alleged that the wife had concealed her income and financial resources.
The Sessions Court upheld ₹15,000 per month interim maintenance for the minor child.
However, the Sessions Court set aside the interim maintenance granted to the wife, accepting the husband’s plea of concealment of income.
Aggrieved, the wife approached the Delhi High Court.
It was undisputed that after vacating the rented premises, the wife and minor child were residing at the wife’s brother’s house, without paying rent.

Whether concealment of income disentitles a wife from receiving monetary maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act?
Whether denial of monetary maintenance automatically disentitles a wife from seeking a residence order under Section 19 of the PWDV Act?
Whether the wife was entitled to financial assistance for securing alternative accommodation?

The Delhi High Court partly allowed the wife’s appeal.
The Court upheld the finding of the lower courts that the wife had concealed material facts regarding her income.
It found no perversity or illegality in denying monetary maintenance to the wife.
However, the Court interfered with the order to the extent it denied relief relating to residence.
The Court granted the wife ₹10,000 per month towards expenses for securing a rented accommodation for herself and the minor child.
The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and conclude evidence without unnecessary delay.

Concealment of income may disentitle a wife from monetary maintenance.
Such concealment does not automatically bar the wife from seeking a residence order under Section 19 of the Domestic Violence Act.
The right to residence is a distinct and independent right under the statute.
A wife and minor child cannot be compelled to live indefinitely at a relative’s house out of goodwill.

The Court drew a clear distinction between maintenance and right to residence under the Domestic Violence Act.
It reaffirmed that the PWDV Act provides multiple, independent reliefs, and denial of one does not negate entitlement to others.
The judgment recognizes the practical realities faced by women who may temporarily reside with relatives due to marital disputes.
By granting rental expenses, the Court ensured the wife’s right to dignified and secure accommodation.
The ruling balances accountability for concealment of income with the protective object of the DV Act.
The direction to expedite trial reflects judicial concern over prolonged matrimonial litigation.
The decision strengthens jurisprudence that residence orders are not contingent solely on financial dependency.