Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that depriving a wife of her income by compelling her to resign from her job constitutes economic abuse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

The court, presided over by Justice G. Girish, delivered the verdict upholding the decision of the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, awarding maintenance of Rs.5,000 per month to the petitioner wife.

The court observed: “it could be seen from the evidence adduced by the petitioner that she was compelled to abandon her job as a Nurse at Bombay as insisted by the respondent, and that was the reason why she had to depend on the respondent for her daily needs. The above aspect would show that the act of the respondent had resulted in deprival of income for the petitioner, which would come under the purview of economic abuse amounting to domestic violence.”

The divorced wife of the respondent, K.M. Mathew, had filed a petition before the  Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vaikkom under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking relief for herself and her three children. The wife claimed that she was previously employed as a nurse in Bombay but was compelled by her husband to quit her job. It was also alleged that her husband, an accountant working in the USA, had not provided financial support to her or their children after she quit her job.

During the proceedings, the wife produced evidence demonstrating that she was financially dependent on the respondent after leaving her employment. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, found that the husband had subjected his wife to economic abuse and directed him to pay Rs.10,000 per month as maintenance. However, on appeal, the Additional Sessions Court, Kottayam, reduced the maintenance to Rs.5,000 per month, reasoning that the original claim also included maintenance for the couple’s children, who had attained majority and were not entitled to maintenance under the DV Act.

The husband challenged the maintenance order before the High Court, asserting that there was no proof of domestic violence and that he lacked the financial means to pay maintenance to his wife.

Contrarily, the wife claimed that Rs.5,000 as maintenance was insufficient given the cost of living and that the respondent had substantial assets, including land in her name but under his possession.

Rejecting the respondent’s argument that there was no proof of domestic violence, the court noted that “the failure on the part of the respondent to provide maintenance to the petitioner itself amounts to economic abuse coming under the purview of domestic violence.” The court further emphasised that the respondent had compelled the petitioner to quit her job, rendering her financially dependent on him, and that this act fell within the definition of domestic violence.

The court dismissed the husband’s claim of financial incapacity. It took into account his long-term employment in the USA and ownership of substantial landed property. However, it upheld the reduction of maintenance to Rs.5,000 per month, reasoning that the trial court had not explicitly separated the amount meant for the petitioner from that claimed for her children, who were ineligible for maintenance.

The plea of the petitioner for an increase in maintenance due to rising living costs was also dismissed, with the court holding that she should have sought enhancement through appropriate legal proceedings before the trial courts.

Conclusively, finding no fault with the trial court’s ruling, the High Court upheld the grant of Rs.5,000 per month as maintenance to be legally justified.

 

Cause Title: K.M. Mathew v Jiji Mathew [CRL.REV.PET NO. 1809 OF 2014]

Appearance: For the petitioner (wife)- Advocate Nireesh Mathew; For the respondent (husband)-Advocates S. Ranjit, Gokul Das V.V.H., and Senior Public Prosecutor Seetha S.