New Delhi : While dismissing an appeal in a domestic violence case, the Delhi High Court in a recent judgement expressed its displeasure and said calling woman a parasite is an insult not only to the Respondent (wife) herein but to the entire women kind.
The High Court also said, “No lady can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another lady and has a child from her.” The husband had got married to another woman and had a daughter with her.
“The contention that the Respondent (Wife) is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law is nothing but an insult not only to the Respondent (Wife) but to the entire women kind,” Justice Subramonium Prasad said in a judgement passed on September 10.
The petitioner (Husband) had challenged an order passed by the trial court on September 19, 2022, by an Additional Sessions Judge who had upheld the Order of December 12, 2018, passed by the Mahila Court, Saket, fixing maintenance of Rs. 30,000 per month to be paid by the Petitioner (Husband) herein to the Respondent (Wife). The high court has dismissed the appeal.
On December 12, 2018, the Metropolitan Magistrate also directed the Petitioner to pay Rs 5,00,000 to the Respondent towards injuries sustained by her, including mental torture, depression and emotional distress and further the Respondent was also awarded Rs.3,00,000 as compensation, including Rs 30,000 as litigation costs.
Justice Prasad said that the fact that the wife is able-bodied and can earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband not to provide maintenance to his wife and children.
“Indian women leave their jobs to look after the family, cater to the needs of their children, look after their husbands and his parents,” Justice Prasad said.
The High Court said that a husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissible ground is contained in the statutes.
It is stated that the marriage of the couple was solemnised on March 3, 1998, according to Hindu rites and customs. They had two children from the marriage.
It is a case of the wife that the husband used to return home late at night and used to abuse the Respondent/Wife physically, mentally and verbally.
It was stated that noticing a change in the attitude of the Husband, the Respondent’s Wife made inquiries and found out that the Petitioner was having an extra-marital affair with another lady (‘Ms. X’).
It was also stated that in March 2010, the Petitioner Husband brought Ms X to the matrimonial house and introduced her to his parents and when the Respondent’s Wife objected to the affair of the Petitioner, the Petitioner stopped coming to the matrimonial house.
It was further stated that the parents of the Petitioner supported him and threatened the Wife not to take any action against him else the Husband would stop the financial support to the Respondent and her kids.
It was also stated that the Wife came to know that the Petitioner Husband got married to Ms X and has a daughter with her. It was also stated that having no other option, the Respondent had to leave the matrimonial house.
In the complaint, it was also stated that the Petitioner herein is carrying on the business of Tent and Decorators.
It was also stated that the monthly income of the Petitioner/Husband from the said business is around Rs.2.50 lakh. It was further stated in the complaint that the Petitioner owns two cars and one flat in Noida and is maintaining several bank accounts.
It was also stated that the Petitioner also owns a warehouse in Sector 51 Noida and he is also a member of the Noida Golf Club, yearly membership of which is Rs.1,00,000. The bench considered all these facts.
The High Court said, “No lady can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another lady and has a child from her. All these facts make the Respondent Wife a victim of Domestic Violence.
The contention of the Petitioner that the complaint filed by the Respondent Wife does not come within the four corners of the DV Act cannot be accepted, the bench said
“The Respondent had to leave her matrimonial house because she was unable to tolerate the fact that her husband is living with another woman. Since the Respondent Wife was not in a position to take care of her two children, she had no option but to leave them with the parents of the Petitioner husband,” Justice Prasad said.
He held that looking at the peculiar facts of the case, the action of the Respondent wife cannot be found fault with.
