The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) is a social welfare legislation aimed at protecting women from domestic abuse in all forms—physical, emotional, economic, and psychological. Among its remedial provisions, Section 20 of the Act empowers the Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to the aggrieved woman. This includes compensation for loss of earnings, medical expenses, maintenance, and loss due to destruction or damage of property.
However, the award of maintenance under Section 20 is not automatic. Indian courts have, over time, evolved specific legal grounds on which maintenance can be denied under this section. This article explores those grounds in detail, along with relevant judicial pronouncements.
Grounds to Deny Maintenance
Capable Earning by the Wife
One of the most frequently cited grounds is when the wife is gainfully employed and financially independent.
Judicial View: In Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal [(2000) 3 MPHT 243], the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a well-qualified wife capable of earning cannot sit idle and demand maintenance.
Depending on the circumstances, a woman’s maintenance claim under Section 20 may be rejected or reduced if she is well-educated, has a job, or earns sufficiently.
Suppression of Material Facts
A petitioner who hides material facts—such as her income, employment status, or assets—may lose the right to maintenance.
Example: Suppose a woman fails to disclose her salary or deliberately provides false information about her employment status. In that case, the court may treat the petition as not made in good faith and deny relief.
Desertion or Refusal to Live Without Cause
If the woman left the matrimonial home without sufficient reason and failed to prove domestic violence, the court may refuse to grant maintenance.
Relevant Case Law: In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [(2017) 15 SCC 801], the Supreme Court ruled that maintenance is not a tool for enriching the wife and cannot be claimed by a spouse who unjustifiably deserts the other.
Living in Adultery
Under Section 125(4) of CrPC, a wife living in adultery is not entitled to maintenance. Though the PWDV Act is separate, courts often borrow principles from the Crpc in determining maintenance.
If the respondent can prove that the wife is in an adulterous relationship, her claim for maintenance may be rejected under Section 20 as well.
Refusal to Comply with Court Directions
A petitioner who shows non-cooperation with court proceedings, ignores summons, or violates interim orders may have her petition dismissed for procedural misconduct or abuse of legal process.
Courts have repeatedly emphasised that clean hands and good conduct are essential for securing relief under welfare legislations.
No Prima Facie Evidence of Domestic Violence
Section 20 relief is contingent upon the existence of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The monetary relief cannot be granted if the woman fails to establish even a prima facie case.
For example: minor domestic quarrels or unsubstantiated allegations without proof or testimony may not qualify as domestic violence, warranting maintenance.
Malicious or Vexatious Litigation
Suppose it is shown that the woman filed the case only to harass the respondent or that she has simultaneously initiated multiple false cases under Section 498A IPC, 125 Crpc, or Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), 1955 with no merit. In that case, the court may infer mala fide intention and deny monetary relief.
Indian courts are increasingly recognising the abuse of process of law as a valid ground for denying maintenance.
Remarriage of the Woman
In cases where the aggrieved woman remarries during the pendency of proceedings, her claim for maintenance under Section 20 ceases, as the economic responsibility is presumed to shift to her new spouse.
Settlement or Mutual Agreement
Where the parties have already entered into a settlement agreement providing for one-time alimony or waiver of future claims, the woman cannot reopen the matter and claim monthly maintenance under Section 20 unless fraud or coercion is proved.
Conclusion
The PWDV Act was enacted with the noble intention of protecting vulnerable women. However, the right to maintenance is not absolute, and it depends on each case’s facts, conduct, and circumstances. Section 20 cannot be used as a weapon of legal harassment; it is a shield for genuine victims.
Courts have consistently held that equity, fairness, and good conscience must guide the decision to grant or deny maintenance. Therefore, any claim under Section 20 must be supported by truthful pleadings, credible evidence, and clean hands.