DV law doesn't distinguish 1st marriage from 2nd on maintenance: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the domestic violence law doesn't distinguish first marriage from the second when it comes to paying maintenance to an estranged spouse.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on July 15 said once a man voluntarily marries his partner and accepts her and her children from the previous marriage, he cannot use it as a defence later to resist his statutory obligations.

A man moved court against paying maintenance to his estranged wife saying it was his second marriage and the children were from her first marriage.

"As regards the petitioner's (man) submission that the respondent's (wife) marriage with him was her second and that she had children from a previous marriage, such a submission is wholly misconceived," the order said.

The order continued, "Domestic Violence Act does not distinguish between a first or subsequent marriage for the purpose of entitlement to maintenance. Once the petitioner voluntarily entered into the marriage and accepted the respondent and her children, he cannot now use that as a defence to resist his statutory obligations."  The high court found "no infirmity" in the trial court's order directing the man to pay Rs 1 lakh monthly maintenance to his wife.

It also found no infirmity in the trial court's order declining maintenance to the woman's sons, who are majors.

The high court, however, found merit in the woman's grievance that the man attempted to alienate his properties during the pendency of the proceedings, allegedly to defeat her legitimate claims.

"The trial court has rightly directed the petitioner not to dispose of his immovable assets without permission of the court. Such conduct lends further credence to the apprehension of the respondent wife and undermines the petitioner's credibility," it said.

The woman claimed that she was presently residing in her ancestral home after being repeatedly subjected to mental, physical, financial and emotional abuse by the husband.

She said after the death of her first husband in 1987 and while raising two sons alone, the man had approached her for marriage with promises of care and fatherly affection for her children.

The man, on the contrary, claimed his wife had voluntarily left the matrimonial home and made no efforts to return or reconcile.

He said she was an able-bodied person and fully capable of maintaining herself and the trial court failed to consider his grave medical condition of Ankylosing Spondylitis, a chronic and incurable disease.