पत्नी पर परजीवी और भरण-पोषण के लिए कानूनी आरोप लगाना, पूरी महिला जाति का अपमान है

Calling wife a parasite and accusing her of seeking legal aid for maintenance is an insult to the entire womankind

The High Court has said that a man calling his wife a parasite and accusing her of seeking legal aid for maintenance is an insult not only to her but to the entire womankind. The court emphasized how much Indian women sacrifice to meet the needs of their husband and his family. A bench of Justice Subramaniam Prasad said that a person cannot be free from the responsibility of maintaining his wife and children, whether the wife is able to earn or not. "The fact that the respondent (wife) is physically capable and can earn a living does not absolve the husband of not paying maintenance to his wife and children. Indian women leave their jobs to take care of the family, to meet the needs of their children, to take care of their husband and his parents. The argument that the respondent (wife) is a mere parasite and is abusing the process of law is an insult to not only the respondent (wife) but the entire womankind," the court said in its September 10 order issued on September 19.

The court was responding to a plea filed by the husband against a September 2022 order of a city court which had directed him to fix maintenance of Rs 30,000 per month for the wife and Rs 5 lakh as compensation for injuries suffered by the wife, including mental torture.The case pertains to a couple who got married in March 1998 and had two children. However, the woman later left her matrimonial home when She found out that her husband had remarried and had a daughter from the said marriage.The woman later approached the city court claiming maintenance, stating that she had no financial support and her job with a salary of Rs 15,100 lasted only for a month due to her lack of education and experience. In her complaint, she had also said that her husband tortured her physically and mentally.In a September 2022 order, the city court held that the fact of the husband remarrying was enough to make out a case of domestic violence against the wife.

In his plea before the High Court, the husband had said that his wife is a capable woman who works in a boutique, and hence she cannot be allowed to become a parasite on her husband by misusing the law. In his 11-page order, the judge said that those statutory provisions relating to maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, Code of Criminal Procedure and Domestic Violence Act are instruments of social justice, enacted to protect women and children from possible vagrancy and a life of deprivation. The judge said that husbands, if they have sufficient means, are duty bound to maintain their wives and children and they cannot shirk their moral and familial responsibilities.

The purpose of the provisions of Section 125 CrPC and DV Act, which empowers the court to award maintenance, has been used for the same purpose, that is, to mitigate the financial suffering of a woman who has been forced to leave her matrimonial home. The husband cannot escape his obligation to maintain his wife and children except on any legally acceptable ground enshrined in law." Upholding the city court's order, Justice Prasad also rejected the husband's plea that his wife was not a victim of domestic violence and could not claim maintenance, saying no woman can tolerate her husband cohabiting with another woman and producing a child from her. No woman can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another woman and producing a child from her. All these facts make the respondent/wife a victim of domestic violence. The petitioner's contention that the complaint filed by the respondent/wife does not fall within the ambit of the DV Act cannot be accepted, the court said.