The Delhi High Court affirmed that a husband’s responsibility to pay maintenance to his wife is not nullified by her ability to earn, emphasizing that financial independence does not eliminate the need for support. The court dismissed a man’s petition challenging his obligation, stating that calling his wife a ‘parasite’ is derogatory and offensive to all women.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court ruled that a husband’s responsibility to provide maintenance to his wife is not negated by her ability to earn an income. The court emphasized that calling a wife a “parasite” is an insult to her and to all women.
This judgment came as the court dismissed the husband’s appeal against a lower court’s decision that ordered him to pay maintenance. The court recognized that many women in India give up their careers to focus on their families, children, and husbands, and this sacrifice should be respected.
In this case, the petitioner had reportedly abandoned his wife and children to live with another woman. The trial court had ordered him to pay Rs. 30,000 per month in maintenance, along with Rs. 5 lakh in compensation for the emotional and mental distress caused to his wife. Additionally, the petitioner was instructed to pay Rs. 3 lakh in compensation, including Rs. 30,000 to cover litigation expenses.
Challenging the ruling, the husband argued that his wife, who had previously worked in a boutique, should not be labelled a “parasite” misusing the law.
However, the court upheld the trial court’s decision, asserting that a wife’s ability to earn does not absolve her husband of his responsibility to provide support.
In its recent judgment, the court considered the husband’s financial position, which reflected a “comfortable and affluent lifestyle,” confirming that he was financially capable of paying the maintenance.
Read Also: Cruelty Against Women| SC: Legal Reforms in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Justice Subramonium Prasad emphasized that many Indian women make considerable sacrifices for their families, and dismissing the wife as a “parasite” disrespectful and derogatory. The court further identified the wife as a victim of domestic violence, which includes various forms of abuse physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic. It was noted that she had been forced to leave the matrimonial home due to her husband’s infidelity and abusive behaviour.
The court referenced key legal provisions, including Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, describing them as vital legal tools for social justice, designed to protect women and children from destitution. It reaffirmed that a husband has a legal obligation to maintain his wife and children if he is financially capable, and cannot shirk this duty without a valid legal reason.