Court’s decision
The Madras High Court dismissed the revision filed against the maintenance order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, affirming the concurrent findings that the wife was subjected to economic abuse and deprivation of basic sustenance. The Court held that “economic abuse is a continuing act of domestic violence” and that the wife qualifies as an “aggrieved person” entitled to monetary relief. It upheld the enhanced maintenance of ₹20,000 per month and observed that the husband cannot avoid statutory obligations by raising technical objections or denying his financial capacity. The Court sustained the appellate court’s finding that non-maintenance constitutes ongoing domestic violence.
Facts
The petitioner-husband challenged an order directing him to pay ₹20,000 per month as maintenance to his wife under the Domestic Violence Act. The wife alleged that she had been continuously subjected to economic abuse, neglect, and denial of financial support essential for survival. She claimed that the husband contributed nothing towards her sustenance, thereby forcing her to seek statutory relief. She further asserted that the husband had sufficient means, including a stable source of income, but deliberately failed to support her. The trial court granted maintenance and the appellate court enhanced it to ₹20,000. Aggrieved, the husband filed a revision before the High Court.
Issues
The Madras High Court examined the following issues:
- Whether the wife can be considered an “aggrieved person” under the Domestic Violence Act.
- Whether economic abuse constitutes continuing domestic violence.
- Whether the appellate court erred in enhancing maintenance to ₹20,000 per month.
- Whether the husband disproved his earning capacity or the wife’s need for support.
- Whether revisional interference is justified where concurrent findings exist.
Petitioner’s arguments
The husband argued that the petition under the Domestic Violence Act was not maintainable and that the wife could not be considered an “aggrieved person.” He contended that there was no act of domestic violence and that the wife was not entitled to monetary relief. He further submitted that he lacked sufficient income and that the appellate court arbitrarily enhanced the maintenance without proper evidence. According to him, the courts below failed to consider his financial constraints and relied only on assumptions. He therefore sought to set aside the maintenance order in revision.
Respondent’s arguments
The wife argued that the husband had subjected her to continuous domestic violence by refusing to provide financial support and forcing her into economic hardship. She maintained that denial of sustenance constitutes “economic abuse” under Section 3 of the Act and that such abuse is a continuing offence. She also asserted that the husband had stable income and intentionally withheld financial support to coerce and penalise her. She argued that both courts had correctly assessed the husband’s capacity and her needs, and therefore, no revisional interference was warranted. She requested dismissal of the revision.
Analysis of the law
The Madras High Court analysed Sections 3, 12, 20 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act to determine whether economic abuse constitutes domestic violence. It held that economic abuse, which includes deprivation of financial resources and maintenance, is explicitly recognised within the statutory definition. The Court emphasised that failure to provide basic sustenance is not a past event but an ongoing wrong that continues every day the wife is denied support. Therefore, she remains an aggrieved person entitled to relief. The Court further clarified that monetary relief under Section 20 aims to ensure that a woman lives with dignity and not in destitution.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on multiple precedents where economic deprivation was held to be a form of domestic violence. It referred to judgments affirming that the Act must be interpreted broadly to protect vulnerable women from financial abuse. High Courts across India have consistently recognised that maintenance ensures dignity and independence. The Court also relied on precedents that restrict revisional interference where concurrent factual findings exist unless orders are perverse, arbitrary, or illegal. These rulings supported the conclusion that the maintenance order was lawful and justified.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that the husband failed to disprove his income or show that he was incapable of paying ₹20,000 per month. It found that the appellate court rightly assessed both the needs of the wife and the earning capacity of the husband. The Court observed that withholding financial support amounted to economic abuse, which is a form of domestic violence under Section 3. It emphasised that domestic violence must be interpreted as a continuing wrong and not a one-time event. The Court concluded that the appellate court’s enhancement was reasonable, proportionate, and supported by evidence. There was no illegality to justify revisional interference.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the enhanced maintenance of ₹20,000 per month. It reiterated that economic abuse is a continuing form of domestic violence, and the wife clearly qualifies as an aggrieved person. The Court confirmed that monetary relief ensures dignity, sustenance, and protection under the Act. It also held that concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in revision unless they are arbitrary or illegal, which was not the case here. The Court affirmed the legality, proportionality, and necessity of the maintenance order.
Implications
This ruling strengthens the jurisprudence that economic abuse squarely falls within the definition of domestic violence. It reinforces women’s right to financial security and dignified living. It also underscores that husbands cannot defeat maintenance claims by raising technical objections or denying income without proof. The decision provides clarity that statutory relief under the Domestic Violence Act is meant to counteract continuing abuse, including financial deprivation. The ruling will influence future maintenance disputes and strengthen the practical enforceability of women’s financial rights.