Husband's Failure To Pay Maintenance Is Economic Abuse Constituting Domestic Violence: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that a husband's failure to pay maintenance to his wife and child constitutes economic abuse amounting to domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging concurrent orders directing him to pay maintenance to...
The Kerala High Court has held that a husband's failure to pay maintenance to his wife and child constitutes economic abuse amounting to domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging concurrent orders directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter under Act.
The dispute arose from proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. The Magistrate found that she had been subjected to domestic violence and directed the husband to pay ₹10,000 per month each to the wife and their minor daughter, along with ₹2 lakh as compensation for emotional distress.
The Sessions Court, Palakkad, dismissed the husband's appeal and affirmed the Magistrate's order. Aggrieved by the same, the husband approached the High Court in a revision petition.
The husband argued that the maintenance awarded was excessive. He contended that his wife was educated and had worked as a teacher in a private college, making her capable of maintaining herself. He further challenged the finding of domestic violence, asserting that the wife's testimony lacked independent corroboration.
The respondent wife submitted that the maintenance awarded was only a modest amount in light of rising living costs and was necessary for her and the child's sustenance. She argued that her employment had been only for a brief period and on a nominal salary, and that the husband remained legally bound to maintain both her and their daughter.
Rejecting the husband's contention that there was no independent evidence of domestic violence, the Court observed that incidents of domestic violence ordinarily occur within the confines of the matrimonial home and, therefore, independent corroboration cannot always be expected.
It noted that the wife had consistently deposed about physical and mental cruelty, misappropriation of her gold ornaments, harassment over the husband's alleged extramarital relationship and his failure to maintain her and their child after they started living separately. The Court found that her testimony remained unshaken during cross-examination.
The Court further held that the husband's admitted failure to provide maintenance itself amounted to economic abuse, which constitutes domestic violence.
“Even the respondent does not have a case that he had paid any amount towards the maintenance of his wife and child after she departed his company. Undisputedly, non-payment of maintenance itself is an economic abuse which would certainly constitute an act of domestic violence. Therefore, I am of the view that no further proof is required to show that the petitioner was subjected to acts of domestic violence in the matrimonial home at the hands of the respondent.” the Court said.
The Court further observed that maintenance must be just, fair and adequate, taking into account the status of the parties and the standard of living to which they were accustomed. The Court remarked that the amount awarded cannot be considered as exorbitant, considering the present cost of living, including expenses towards clothing, food and education and medical treatment
The Court also noted that the husband had not established that he was incapable of earning or that he was not an able-bodied person.
With these observations, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: V v P and Anr.
Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet 1311/ 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Counsel for Revision Petitioner: Jacob Sebastian, Winston K.V, Anu Jacob
Counsel for Respondents: S. Rajeev, V.Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Prerith Philip Joseph, Anilkumar C.R, K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Megha K. Havier (Sr. PP)