Suspecting wife’s fidelity is also domestic violence

Suspecting the wife’s fidelity and questioning her for moving about with almost every other person, including her father, also amounts to domestic violence, entitling the victim woman subjected to such “emotional abuse” to seek refuge under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, the Madras High Court Bench here has held.

Further, rejecting the husband’s contention that he did not have the wherewithal to pay maintenance to his estranged wife, as ordered by a lower court, since he was unemployed, Justice P. Devadass said: “It is too dangerous to accept such a contention. If he has no job, he can work as a coolie and there is no wrong even in begging for feeding wife and children.”

Stating that the term ‘domestic violence’ included physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse, the judge said: “In a domestic relationship, domestic violence is analogous to matrimonial cruelty. Domestic violence comprises physical as well as mental cruelty. Mental cruelty is worse than physical cruelty. Physical cruelty may heal but not mental torture.”

Dealing with the specifics in the case on hand, he said: “In this case, the husband is having the habit of suspecting his wife. He has the habit of linking her with many persons. He is too cruel to link her even with his father. It will be too dangerous and unbearable for a wife. It will be hell for her… In the facts and circumstances of this case, what is complained of is nothing less than domestic violence.”

Though a Judicial Magistrate in Kovilpatti had in July last directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000 every month to the woman apart from providing rental accommodation to her on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000 and paying Rs.50,000 towards compensation, a Sessions Judge had modified the order to a great extent at petitioner’s behest on February 11 this year, the judge pointed out.

Since the Sessions Judge had reduced the compensation to Rs.25,000 and also deleted the direction to provide rental accommodation, there was no necessity to interfere with the award anymore, Mr. Justice Devadass said. On the plea of unemployment raised by the petitioner, the judge said: “If such a contention is accepted, then every husband will try to escape from his moral and legal obligation.”