The High Court of Delhi has ruled that a woman’s inability to specify the exact date and time of alleged tortures does not render her allegations of domestic violence baseless. The Court also affirmed that a husband’s failure to provide any maintenance to his estranged wife and child constitutes “economic abuse” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
In a significant judgment, Justice Amit Mahajan set aside an appellate court order that had denied maintenance to a woman and her child. The High Court restored the order of the learned Magistrate, awarding ₹4,000 per month each to the wife and child, emphasizing that the non-payment of maintenance is a form of economic abuse.
Background of the Case
A woman filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, stating she was married in 2011 and had a child. She alleged constant torture for dowry, including a demand for a motorcycle, and that she was beaten and ultimately ousted from her matrimonial home in April 2012 after failing to procure ₹50,000 for her sister-in-law’s wedding.
The learned Magistrate, in a 2018 order, noted that while the wife had not proven the allegations of physical violence with police complaints or independent witnesses, the husband’s negligence in maintaining his wife and child constituted economic abuse under the DV Act. Assessing the husband’s income at ₹20,000 per month, the Magistrate awarded maintenance.
This order was overturned on appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) in 2019. The ASJ reasoned that since physical cruelty was not proven and the wife had left the matrimonial home of her own accord, no case for maintenance was made out. The wife then challenged the ASJ’s judgment in the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
The wife’s counsel argued that the ASJ erred by not considering that the non-payment of maintenance itself is a form of economic abuse under the DV Act.
Conversely, the husband’s counsel supported the ASJ’s order, arguing that since domestic violence was not proven, maintenance could not be granted, and contended that the wife had left his company on her own.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, after a “scrupulous analysis of the facts,” sided with the wife. The judgment by Justice Amit Mahajan highlighted that the DV Act gives an expansive definition to ‘domestic violence’ which explicitly includes ‘economic abuse’.
The Court found the husband’s position inconsistent, noting, “it is apparent that no explanation has been offered by the husband as to why the wife left his company… On one hand, it is urged by the husband that the wife left his company of her own will, however, on the other hand, no petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights was preferred by him.”
Rejecting the lower appellate court’s reasoning, the High Court stated, “Merely because the petitioner failed to provide the exact date and time of the alleged tortures does not tantamount to mean that the case of the petitioner is without any basis.”
Crucially, the High Court pointed to evidence that contradicted the finding of ‘no harassment’. It noted that the husband, in his testimony, had “admitted to having received a motorcycle from the family of the petitioner, and also admitted to being in possession of furniture, washing machine, sewing machine, almirah, bed, stool, TV and other items of the petitioner.” The Court also took note of a complaint filed with the Crime Against Women (CAW) Cell. “On such a conspectus of facts, in the opinion of this Court, the case of the petitioner cannot be said to be without any ground,” the judgment concluded.
The Court held that the husband’s failure to provide any maintenance for his wife and child since 2012 was a clear case of economic abuse. The judgment stated, “It is also not the case of the husband that maintenance was offered by him for upkeep of the Petitioner and the minor child. This Court, thus, is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation on account of ‘economic abuse’.”
Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the High Court upheld the Magistrate’s assessment of the husband’s income at ₹20,000 per month, noting his vague and unsupported income affidavit. As the husband had no other dependents, the award of ₹4,000 each for the wife and child was deemed reasonable.
Allowing the petition, the High Court set aside the ASJ’s order and reinstated the maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate.
