Pushpa @ Baby (Petitioner) vs. State & Anr (Respondents), 2025

CRL.M.C. 1129/2020

(Delivered by Mr. AMIT MAHAJAN, J)

The High Court’s judgment in Pushpa @ Baby vs. State & Anr set aside an appellate order that had vacated a Magistrate’s grant of maintenance under the DV Act. Pushpa (Petitioner) got married to Respondent No. 2 in February 2011 and had one child. She complained under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), seeking various reliefs including protection, residence, and maintenance, and alleging ongoing cruelty and dowry demands, that the husband has abandoned her and her minor child. She was granted maintenance of ₹4,000 per month each (for herself and child) in December 2018 by the Magistrate.

Respondent no. 2 (husband) appealed under Section 29 before ASJ, and the court set aside the order of maintenance by the Magistrate in December 2019, citing a lack of detailed instances of violence and questioning the credibility of the petitioner’s claims. It was observed that the allegations were general and lacked specific dates or incidents that could be categorized as “domestic violence” under the Act. Moreover, the ASJ accepted the Respondent’s claim that the separation was voluntary on the part of the Petitioner and that she had chosen to live apart without justification.

In the present revision, the Delhi High Court analysed that the Petitioner claimed repeated dowry-related cruelty. Firstly, although the Petitioner did not supply specific dates or instances of violence, the High Court accepted sustained neglect and failure to maintain her and the child from April 2012 as domestic violence under Section 3(iv). Secondly, the Respondent’s income affidavit was vague and did not clarify his earnings or dependents. The Court accepted an assessed monthly income of ₹20,000 and found maintenance of ₹4,000 each reasonable within that scale. Thirdly, the failure of any attempt by the Respondent to restore the marital relationship for over 13 years itself constituted domestic violence per Section 3(iv) of the DV Act, and this weighed heavily in Pushpa’s favour. The revision petition was allowed in these terms.

The ruling upholds that economic abandonment and inability to support a spouse or child are domestic violence under Section 3(iv), whether or not there is overt physical or emotional cruelty. It is a progressive take on the DV Act, acknowledging that legislation aims to safeguard women from not only physical abuse, but also from economic exploitation and neglect. The ruling remains a reminder that the obligation to support a wife and child is obligatory, and not doing so, particularly without any cause, may constitute actionable domestic violence. The case illustrates how the judicial system proceeds to adapt in its interpretation of abuse, broadening the scope beyond commonality and retaining the dignity and rights of women in difficult matrimonial situations.