The Delhi High Court recently noted that a husband’s cohabitation with another woman and fathering a child with her subjects the wife to domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made this observation while dismissing the husband’s appeal against the award of Rs. 30,000 in monthly maintenance to his wife.
The husband also contested the court’s decision to grant the wife Rs. 5 lakh for her injuries, including mental anguish, Rs. 3 lakh as compensation, and Rs. 30,000 for legal expenses.
“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 Respondent had to leave her matrimonial house because she was unable to tolerate the fact that her husband is living with another woman,” the court said.
The couple married in 1998, and the wife claimed that the husband subjected her to mental, verbal, and physical abuse. She further alleged that in 2010, he brought another woman, with whom he was having an extramarital affair, to their home, introduced her to his parents, and ceased visiting the matrimonial house.
She also claimed that her in-laws threatened her not to take any action against the husband, warning that he would cut off financial support for her and their children. Additionally, she alleged that the husband married the other woman and had a daughter with her.
In dismissing the husband’s petition, Justice Prasad rejected his argument that the wife’s complaint did not fall within the scope of the Domestic Violence Act.
The court stated that the wife was forced to leave her matrimonial home because she could no longer endure the fact that her husband was living with another woman.
“Since the Respondent/Wife was not in a position to take care of her two children, she had no option to leave them with the parents of the Petitioner herein. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, the action of the Respondent/wife cannot be found fault with,” the court said.
In affirming the award of Rs. 30,000 in monthly maintenance, the court emphasized that the wife’s ability to earn should not be held against her.
“The fact that the Respondent is able bodied and can earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband not to provide maintenance to his wife and children,” the court said.
It added, “Indian women leave their jobs to look after the family, cater to the needs of their children, look after their husbands and his parents. The contention that the Respondent is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law is nothing but an insult not only to the Respondent herein but to the entire women kind.”
