According to the law, Economic domestic violence means failing to meet the wife’s basic needs, such as food, clothing, and household expenses, if she lives apart from her husband.
In this case, the husband has been ordered by the court to pay the wife Rs 25 lakh in lump sum and Rs 15,000 per month.
This order was passed by the court to Mahendra son of Hiralal Rajoria, a builder and engineer.
Mahendra’s wife filed an appeal in the sessions court against her husband and also filed a maintenance claim in district court due to a mutual disagreement between the couple.
When the court decided this case in 2008, it ordered the husband to pay the wife 5,000 rupees per month.
The wife then filed an appeal in the Sessions Court against this decision through Advocate KP Maheshwari. Mahendra married 26 years ago. After a few years, he began to have disagreements with his wife. Later on, the couple began to live apart.
The husband argued in court that the wife is capable of earning her own money. He is not required to pay maintenance, but the court dismissed these arguments.
The Court observed:
“It is settled law that mental physical and economical violence against a wife women comes within the meaning of domestic violence and even not providing food, clothes and basic amenities to a wife may also amount to economical domestic violence against her. In this case, the respondent/husband has not claimed that he is giving any financial help to his wife except making payment of an amount ordered by court. So, it is clear that the respondent/husband in not taking care of daily need of his wife whereas he has sufficient means to maintain her as its not less than an economical domestic violence in this case against the applicant/wife. As far as concern to the compensation for loss of properties, mental and physical harassment, the evidences and document placed on record are not sufficient to prove that the applicant/wife is entitle to as such relief of Rs. 51 lac’s for loss of properties and mental and physical harassment to the applicant/wife. Moreover, the daughter of parties to the litigation namely Anushka appeared before the court and deposed that her father is bearing all the expenses for their study and day to day needs and he is also taking care of them as this court has not found any reason to grant any amount to applicant against the marriage of their children.”
