The Delhi High Court recently observed that a husband’s cohabitation with another woman and having a child with her constitutes domestic violence against the wife under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made this remark while rejecting the husband’s appeal against the order granting his wife Rs. 30,000 in monthly maintenance.
The husband also challenged the court’s decision to award his wife Rs. 5 lakh for her injuries, including mental distress, Rs. 3 lakh as compensation, and Rs. 30,000 for legal costs.
“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 alleged that the husband subjected her to mental, verbal, and physical abuse. She further claimed that in 2010, he brought another woman, with whom he was having an extramarital affair, into their home, introduced her to his parents, and stopped coming to the matrimonial house.
She also stated that her in-laws threatened her not to take any action against the husband, warning that he would withdraw financial support for her and their children. Additionally, she alleged that the husband later married the other woman and had a daughter with her.
In rejecting the husband’s petition, Justice Prasad dismissed his claim that the wife’s complaint did not fall under the Domestic Violence Act.
The court held that the wife was compelled to leave her matrimonial home because she could no longer tolerate her husband’s cohabitation 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 upholding the Rs. 30,000 monthly maintenance award, the court stressed that the wife’s earning capacity should not be used 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.
