The Calcutta High Court has ruled that refusing to provide financial support to a wife and her minor son amounts to “domestic violence” under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005). The court clarified that this applies even if the husband and wife do not live together.
In the case, a husband and his wife, married under Muslim Shariat Law on November 20, 2011, faced marital issues soon after their wedding. The wife allegedly began to misbehave without cause. She eventually left the matrimonial home on February 15, with their minor child. The husband divorced his wife on January 19, 2016, through Talaknama, in line with Muslim Personal Law. The wife accepted the divorce but later filed a criminal case against the husband, alleging false charges. She also filed a civil suit, claiming the divorce was invalid and seeking financial support for herself and their minor son.
The court highlighted that denying financial support constitutes domestic violence, stating:
“Denial of economic support to the petitioner and their minor son, who is raised by the opposite party no. 2, may amount to ‘economic abuse’ under the definition of ‘domestic violence’ in the Act. It does not matter if the parties live together or not. Even if the opposite party no. 2 is a working woman, it must be determined whether her income is sufficient, fair, and aligns with the standard of living and upbringing their son is accustomed to, to decide the issue of economic abuse.”
The Court also noted that economic abuse, a form of domestic violence, continues even after the alleged Talaq, as evidenced by the wife’s request for interim financial relief to support their son.
Therefore, the Court declined to dismiss the criminal proceedings against the husband, stating:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the ongoing dispute over the cancellation of Talaq, and recognizing that ‘domestic violence’ under Section 3 of the DV Act, 2005, includes both emotional and economic abuse, it cannot be concluded at this stage that the opposite party no. 2 is not an ‘aggrieved person’, even though both parties are living separately.”
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
