The Kerala High Court has turned down a husband's plea to reduce the maintenance amount he was ordered to pay his wife and minor daughter under the Domestic Violence Act. Justice Jobin Sebastian, hearing the matter at Ernakulam, dismissed the revision petition and let the earlier orders of the trial court and the sessions court stand.
Background Of The Case
The dispute goes back to a case filed by the wife before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. She had accused her husband of subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty inside their matrimonial home, alleged that he sold off her gold ornaments to fund his business, and said he had gotten involved with another woman. When she questioned him about it, she claimed the harassment only got worse. Eventually, she left the house and started living separately, telling the court that her husband had stopped paying maintenance for over a year.
The Magistrate accepted her case and directed the husband to pay Rs 10,000 each every month to the wife and their minor daughter as maintenance, along with a lump sum of Rs 2 lakh as compensation for emotional distress.
Unhappy with this, the husband approached the Sessions Court, Palakkad, in appeal. The Sessions Judge dismissed his appeal and upheld the Magistrate's order in full, which is what brought him to the High Court in revision.
Arguments Before The Court
The husband's lawyers argued that the maintenance amount was too high, pointing out that the wife was an educated woman working as a teacher in a private college. They contended that both the trial court and the appellate court had ignored the husband's actual financial condition while fixing the amount. They also questioned the wife's evidence about domestic violence, saying it wasn't reliable enough to make her an "aggrieved person" under the Act.
The wife's side pushed back, saying the amount awarded was modest given today's cost of living, and that she had worked at the private school for only a short spell on a low salary. They maintained that a husband's obligation to maintain his wife and child does not vanish just because he claims financial difficulty, especially when there's no suggestion that he is unable to work.
Court's Observations
Justice Sebastian began by reminding both sides that a revision court doesn't function like a second appellate court. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, the judge noted that the High Court can step in only when there's illegality, impropriety or a glaring miscarriage of justice - not simply because another view of the evidence is possible.
On the question of the wife's job, the court examined the evidence of a college principal who confirmed the wife had taught there for about eight months, earning a modest Rs 10,000 a month. The judge held that such short-term, low-paid employment was no ground to deny her maintenance.
The court also made a broader point about the nature of domestic violence cases - that this kind of harassment usually happens behind closed doors, so courts shouldn't insist on independent witnesses to back up a survivor's testimony. Importantly, the judge observed that non-payment of maintenance itself amounts to economic abuse, which qualifies as an act of domestic violence under the law.
The bench observed that the husband's duty to maintain his wife and child is a moral and legal one that doesn't depend on his financial capacity, particularly since there was no claim that he was unable to work.
Decision
Finding no illegality or unreasonableness in the orders of the lower courts, the Kerala High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition and confirmed the maintenance and compensation awarded to the wife and daughter.
