Reiterating the limited scope of inquiry at the stage of interim relief, the Delhi High Court has held that allegations of adultery when disputed and unproven cannot be a ground to deny interim maintenance to a wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Dismissing a husband’s revision petition, the Court upheld concurrent findings granting interim maintenance to the respondent-wife.

The revision petition arose from proceedings under Sections 12 and 23 of the DV Act, wherein the Magistrate had awarded interim maintenance, which was subsequently affirmed by the Sessions Court. The husband assailed these orders primarily on the ground that the wife was allegedly living in adultery and in a live-in relationship during the subsistence of marriage, thereby disentitling her from being treated as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act. In support, reliance was placed on certain photographs purportedly depicting the wife in a compromising position.

The High Court declined to accept this contention, noting that the authenticity and evidentiary value of the photographs were seriously disputed and could only be tested during trial. The Court emphasised that at the interim stage, disputed questions of fact particularly allegations carrying serious civil consequences cannot be conclusively adjudicated. Allegations of adultery, the Court observed, are matters requiring proof through evidence and cannot be presumed merely on the basis of unverified material.

Importantly, the Court drew a clear statutory distinction between proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and those under the DV Act. While Section 125(4) CrPC expressly bars maintenance to a wife living in adultery, no such statutory embargo exists under the DV Act. The latter is a welfare legislation with a significantly wider remedial framework, intended to address multiple forms of domestic violence, including emotional, verbal and economic abuse. The Court held that importing disqualifications from Section 125 CrPC into DV Act proceedings would be legally impermissible.

While affirming the grant of interim maintenance, the High Court balanced equities by directing the trial court to endeavour to decide the main DV petition expeditiously. It further clarified that if, upon appreciation of evidence, the trial court ultimately concludes that the wife was living in adultery and not entitled to maintenance, she would be liable to refund the entire interim maintenance amount received, along with interest.