Can a husband evade his responsibility towards his wife and children, especially when claims of domestic violence and emotional trauma are involved?

"Delhi High Court Upholds Maintenance and Compensation for Wife in Domestic Violence Case"

• CONTEXT

This case revolves around the ongoing legal battle between a husband and wife after allegations of domestic violence and adultery. The husband challenged the trial and appellate court's orders regarding maintenance and compensation to the wife, who claimed severe emotional and physical distress.

Amit Chandi v. Aarti Chandi

Crl. M. A. 23031/2024

Before the High Court of Delhi

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad J

• BACKGROUND

1. The Respondent-Aarti Chandi and the Petitioner-Amit Chandi were married in 1998 and have two children.
2. Aarti alleged his husband Amit had an extra-marital affair and he has abandoned her and their children.
3. She filed for maintenance under domestic violence laws, citing mental, physical, and emotional abuse.
4. The trial court awarded ?30,000 per month as maintenance to the Respondent-Aarti, along with a compensation of ?8,00,000 for emotional distress, injuries, and litigation costs.
5. The petitioner- Amit appealed, contending that the trial court overlooked his financial constraints and his previous payments to Aarti in other proceedings. However, the Additional Sessions Judge upheld the trial court’s ruling.

• LEGAL ISSUE

1. Can a husband avoid paying maintenance and compensation to his wife in light of allegations of extra-marital affairs and domestic violence?
2. Was the maintenance awarded by the Court below was beyond the respondent’s actual needs and expenses?

• ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES

PETITIONER-HUSBAND'S SUBMISSION

1. The trial court erred in calculating the maintenance as it exceeded the actual expenses of the wife.
2. The wife is an able-bodied individual who has previously worked and that she should not be a financial burden on him.
3. He had already paid ?14 lakhs in another proceeding, which was not considered.

RESPONDENT-WIFE'S SUBMISSION

1. The Petitioner stopped supporting her and the children after his extra-marital relationship.
2. The petitioner also had a daughter from another lady.
3. Despite her efforts to secure employment, she was unable to sustain a steady income, further burdened by emotional and physical distress caused by the petitioner.

• COURT'S OBSERVATION

1. The provisions under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C., and Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act serve to protect women from destitution.
2. The evidence of an extra-marital relationship and the resulting emotional distress was sufficient to justify maintenance.
3. No lady can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another lady and has a child from her.
4. The fact that the Respondent/Wife is capable of earning cannot work to her detriment.
5. The averment by the petitioner that the Respondent is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law is nothing but an insult not only to the Respondent herein but to the entire women kind.

• COURT'S ORDER

1. The Delhi High Court upheld the previous orders of the trial and appellate courts.
2. The Petitioner was directed to continue paying Rs.30,000 per month as maintenance and the compensatory sum of Rs.8,00,000 for emotional distress and litigation costs.

Seema Bhatnagar