In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has held that a husband’s cohabitation with another woman and the birth of a child from that relationship constitutes domestic violence against his wife. The court reaffirmed that such actions amount to emotional and mental abuse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and justified the award of maintenance and compensation to the wife.
Justice Subramonium Prasad, delivering the judgment, upheld the orders of the lower courts, which had directed the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month as maintenance to his estranged wife. The courts had also awarded additional compensation for the emotional distress caused by the husband’s infidelity and abandonment.
Case Background
The couple had been married for several years and had two children together. The wife filed a domestic violence complaint after discovering that her husband was involved in an extramarital relationship, which eventually led to the birth of a child with the other woman. This discovery, according to the wife, marked the culmination of years of physical, verbal, and emotional abuse by the husband.
The wife alleged that the husband not only continued his relationship with the other woman but introduced her to his family, ignoring the wife’s objections. This conduct, along with the husband’s abandonment of the matrimonial home, forced the wife to take legal action.
The wife also highlighted that the husband led a financially comfortable life, running a successful business, owning properties, and maintaining an affluent lifestyle, while she had no regular income.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations
The husband challenged the maintenance award, arguing that his estranged wife was capable of earning her own livelihood and should not be entitled to maintenance. He further contended that he had already paid a significant sum in a separate legal proceeding and that the lower courts had not taken this into account when determining maintenance.
The court, however, rejected the husband’s arguments, holding that his cohabitation with another woman and the birth of a child from that relationship constituted domestic violence under the law. Justice Subramonium Prasad noted that such conduct amounted to emotional and mental abuse, emphasizing that “no wife can be expected to tolerate her husband living with another woman and having a child with her.”
The court further observed, “A husband’s obligation to maintain his wife and children does not cease simply because the wife has the capacity to earn. The fact that she can earn a livelihood does not absolve him of his duty, especially when he has subjected her to years of emotional and mental suffering.” The court reaffirmed that the Domestic Violence Act was designed to protect women from such abuse and ensure their financial sustenance after being forced out of the matrimonial home.
Final Judgment
Upholding the previous rulings, the High Court ruled that the husband must continue to pay ₹30,000 per month as maintenance to his wife. The court also upheld the additional compensation awarded for the emotional distress and legal costs incurred by the wife.
In dismissing the husband’s petition, the court emphasized that the financial support provided in other proceedings could not absolve him of his legal obligation to maintain his wife and children under the Domestic Violence Act.
