Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, remarked that a husband calling his wife a parasite, for seeking maintenance, is nothing but an insult to the entire womankind. The court highlighted that “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 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”, the bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad held. 

The trial court had directed the husband to pay Rs. 30,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife along with Rs. 5,00,000/- for injuries suffered, including mental torture, depression, and emotional distress. The wife was also awarded Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation, which included Rs. 30,000/- for litigation costs. The appellate court had upheld the order of the trial court. The husband then approached the high court challenging the order of the appellate court. 

The wife alleged that the husband was involved in an extramarital relationship with another woman (Ms X). The husband thereafter introduced Ms. X to his parents at the matrimonial home. When the wife objected to the affair, the husband stopped visiting the matrimonial home. The wife further stated that the husband’s parents supported him and threatened her not to take any action, warning that the husband would cease financial support for her and the children. 

The wife further mentioned that she had briefly worked for a salary of Rs. 15,100/- in February 2023, but due to a lack of experience and education, the employment lasted only a month.

The trial court concluded that although the wife could not prove the husband’s marriage to Ms. X, evidence showed that the husband had a daughter with Ms. X. The trial court found that the husband’s relationship with another woman and having a daughter with her constituted sufficient grounds for a case of domestic violence. 

Advocate Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, representing the husband, contended that the wife was capable of working, having previously been employed at a boutique, and therefore, she should not be allowed to misuse the law to financially depend on him. Advocate Tiwary also stated that the husband had already paid Rs. 14 lakhs to the wife in separate proceedings, which was not considered in the impugned order. 

The court outlined the purpose behind Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 of CrPC, and Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The court elucidated that these acts serve as “tools of social justice which have been enacted to ensure that the women and children are protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution”. 

The court reiterated that “the conceptualisation of Section 125 was meant to ameliorate the financial suffering of a woman who had left her matrimonial home; it is a means to secure the woman’s sustenance, along with that of the children, if any”. 

The court observed that the aforementioned provision mandated that if a husband had the financial capacity, he was obligated to maintain his wife and children, without shirking his moral and familial responsibilities. The court highlighted that the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC were aimed at mitigating the financial hardships of a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home, facilitating arrangements for her to sustain herself. 

Furthermore, the court highlighted that it was the husband's duty to provide financial support for both his wife and children. The provisions of the DV Act, which empowered the courts to grant maintenance, served the same purpose—relieving the financial burdens faced by women compelled to leave their matrimonial homes. “A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissibly ground is contained in the statutes”, the court added.

Therefore, the court, agreeing with the findings of the trial court, upheld the impugned order and disposed of the petition.

Case Title: Amit Chandi v Aarti Chandi (2024:DHC:7173)