TNR News Network
Shimla: In a ruling that has drawn attention across the country, the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Rampur Bushahr, has observed that a wife who fails to establish allegations of domestic violence cannot claim maintenance under the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court cited a Himachal Pradesh High Court order as precedent.
The order came while hearing a petition filed by a woman from Rampur seeking a protection order, monthly maintenance, residential accommodation and compensation under Sections 12 and 22 of the Act. She alleged that despite having sufficient means, her husband was deliberately neglecting her needs, withholding food, medicines, clothing and other essentials. She further accused him of physical assault and threatening her with dire consequences.
Husband disputes allegations
The husband, a former serviceman, contested the accusations, calling them fabricated. He told the court that his wife’s behaviour changed two years into their marriage and that she left the home without informing him, abandoning both him and their minor son. He claimed he respects the law and had made “substantial financial provisions” for her, including a fixed deposit of Rs 4.5 lakh.
During proceedings, the wife admitted that her husband used to transfer money to her account during his service. She also acknowledged that they hold a joint account and that her husband’s pension is deposited into it. The court noted that she works in Panchkula, earning Rs 10,000–15,000 a month and has been living separately since 2020. She has also filed for divorce in a family court.
No evidence to support charges: Court
In its detailed order, the court said the applicant failed to produce any evidence to corroborate her allegations of domestic violence. It added that the husband bears responsibility for their son and other family members, and the wife’s divorce petition itself indicates she is unwilling to continue marital life.
The court referred to the 2021 Himachal Pradesh High Court judgment in Manohar Singh vs. Draupadi Devi, which held that maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act can be granted only when domestic violence, whether physical, emotional, or economic, is established. The Act’s purpose, the bench noted, is to provide relief specifically to victims of domestic violence, and not otherwise.
Finding no substantiation of the charges, the ACJM dismissed the woman’s application, stating that she was not entitled to any relief based on the grounds presented.
The order has triggered widespread discussion on legal standards required to secure maintenance under the DV Act, especially in cases where marital disputes run parallel in civil and family courts.
