HC: Man calling wife a parasite is an insult to womankind

New Delhi

A man calling his wife a parasite and accusing her of misusing the law by claiming maintenance despite being able bodied is not only an insult to her but to the entire womankind, the Delhi high court has said, emphasising the sacrifices made by Indian women for catering to the needs of her husband and his family.

A bench of justice Subramonium Prasad said that a man cannot be absolved from his responsibility of maintaining his wife and children, irrespective of whether the wife has the capability to earn.

“The fact that the Respondent (wife) is able bodied and can earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband not to provide maintenance to his wife and children. 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 (wife) is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law is nothing but an insult not only to the Respondent (wife) herein but to the entire womankind,” the court said in its September 10 order, released on September 19.

The court was responding to a plea filed by the husband against a city court’s September 2022 order of fixing ₹30,000 per month as maintenance for the wife, and directing him to pay ₹5 lakh towards the injuries sustained by the wife including mental torture, and ₹3 lakh as compensation.

The case involves a couple that got married in March 1998 and had two children. However, the woman later left her matrimonial home after she learnt that her husband married again, and had a daughter out of the said marriage.

The woman later approached the city court claiming maintenance, contending that she had no financial support and her employment with a salary of ₹15,100 lasted only a month due to lack of education and experience. In her complaint, she had also stated that she was subjected to physical and mental abuse by her husband.

In the September 2022 order, the city court held that the fact of the husband had married again was sufficient to make out a case of domestic violence against the wife.

In his petition before the high court, the husband had stated that his wife is an able-bodied woman who worked in a boutique, and she could thus not be allowed to become a parasite on her husband by misusing the law.

In his 11-page order, the judge said that those statutory provisions dealing with maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, Code of Criminal Procedure, and Domestic Violence Act, are tools of social justice which have been enacted to protect women and children from the life of potential vagrancy and destitution. Husbands, if they have sufficient means, the judge added, are obligated to maintain their wife and children and cannot shirk away from their moral and familial responsibilities.

“The object of section 125 CrPC and the provisions of DV Act which gives power to the court to award maintenance have been used for the same purpose, viz, to reduce further financial sufferings of a lady who has been forced to leave her matrimonial house. A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissible ground is contained in the statutes,” the court maintained.

Upholding the city court’s order, justice Prasad also rejected the husband’s contention that his wife was not a victim of domestic violence and could not claim maintenance, saying that no woman can tolerate her husband cohabiting with another woman and having a child with her.

“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 court said.