Failure to pay maintenance to wife, children economic abuse: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a husband's failure to pay maintenance to his estranged wife and daughter amounts to economic abuse and constitutes domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court dismissed the man's plea seeking a reduction in the court-ordered monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 and compensation of ₹2 lakh awarded to the woman for emotional distress.

In its July 15 order, Justice Jobin Sebastian held that the maintenance fixed by the magistrate and sessions courts was neither excessive nor disproportionate to the genuine needs of the woman and her daughter. The court observed that non-payment of maintenance itself amounted to economic abuse and was sufficient to constitute an act of domestic violence, making any further proof unnecessary.

The High Court further stated that a husband has both a moral and legal obligation to maintain his wife and child, regardless of his financial capacity. It held that he was bound to provide adequate maintenance to ensure they could lead a dignified life, Indian Express reported.

Taking note of the woman's educational and family background, the court found that the maintenance awarded was fair, reasonable and consistent with the present cost of living.

Addressing the husband's argument that his wife was employed as a teacher, the court noted that records showed she had worked at a private college for only about eight months—from June 2019 to February 2020—for a monthly salary of ₹10,000. It held that this brief and low-paid employment was not sufficient grounds to deny her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act.

Finding no illegality, perversity or error in the decisions of the lower courts, the High Court upheld the maintenance order, observing that it was in line with the standard of living the wife was entitled to.

During the hearing, the husband's counsel, advocate Jacob Sebastian, argued that the maintenance amount was excessive and contended that the magistrate had failed to consider the wife's educational qualifications and her employment at a private college. He also maintained that the maintenance awarded was disproportionate to the husband's financial status and questioned the credibility of the domestic violence allegations.

Appearing for the wife, her counsel argued that the maintenance awarded was modest and necessary to meet the needs of both the woman and her daughter in view of the prevailing cost of living. He further submitted that her brief employment at a private college on a nominal salary did not absolve the husband of his moral and legal responsibility to maintain his wife and child.