Wife Compelled To Leave Matrimonial House Due To Husband's Extra Marital Affair Makes Her Victim Of Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that a husband living with another lady and having a child with her makes the wife victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while rejecting a husband's plea against grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to his wife.
He also challenged grant of Rs. 5 lakh to the wife for the injuries sustained by her, including mental torture, Rs.3 lakh as compensation and Rs.30,000 as litigation 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 parties got married in 1998. The wife alleged that the husband used to abuse her mentally, verbally and physically. She further alleged that in 2010, he brought a lady to the house with whom he was having an extra marital affair, introduced her to his parents and stopped coming to the matrimonial house.
She alleged that her in laws threatened her not to take any action against the husband, else he would stop financial support to her and her kids. Furthermore, it was alleged that the husband got married to the lady and had a daughter with her.
Dismissing the husband's plea, Justice Prasad rejected his contention that the complaint filed by the wife did not come within the four corners of the Domestic Violence Act.
The court said that the wife had to leave her matrimonial house because she was unable to tolerate 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.
While upholding the grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000, the court said that the fact that the wife was capable of earning cannot work to her detriment.
“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.”
Title: X v. Y