3 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Jul 30, 2026 01:42 PM IST
A man not paying maintenance to his estranged wife and daughter is “economic abuse” and an act of “domestic violence”, the Kerala High Court has said, rejecting his request to reduce the court-ordered monthly maintenance amount of Rs 20,000, besides Rs 2 lakh as compensation for emotional distress.
Justice Jobin Sebastian, dismissing the man’s application to reduce the maintenance granted to his estranged wife by the sessions and magistrate courts, said the amount was “neither excessive nor disproportionate” to the genuine needs of the woman and her daughter.
“Undisputedly, non-payment of maintenance itself is an economic abuse which would certainly constitute an act of domestic violence; therefore, I am of the view that no further proof is required to show that the petitioner was subjected to acts of domestic violence in the matrimonial home at the hands of the respondent,” said the high court in the July 15 order.
The Kerala High Court held that non-payment of maintenance itself is an economic abuse that would constitute an act of domestic violence. (AI-enhanced image)
‘Man bound to pay’
It is the “moral as well as legal obligation” of a husband to maintain his wife and child irrespective of his financial capacity, the court said, adding that the man is “bound” to pay enough maintenance to ensure a dignified life for his wife and the child.
Noting that the woman had a good family and educational background, the high court said the maintenance granted by previous courts was “reasonable and fair and agrees with the present cost of living”.
On the husband’s claim that she had a teaching job at a college, the court noted that the college principal had confirmed the wife had worked there only about eight months, from June 2019 to February 2020, on a salary of Rs 10,000. This brief stint on a nominal salary was not reason enough to deny her maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, said the court.
Finding “no illegality, perversity or error” in the findings of the magistrate and the sessions court, the high court confirmed the maintenance amount and said it aligned with the wife’s standard of living.
Story continues below this ad
Arguments
The husband’s counsel, advocate Jacob Sebastian, argued that the maintenance amount was excessive, pointing out that the wife was an educated woman working as a teacher in a private college, a fact he claimed was not considered by the magistrate while passing the order. The lawyer said an “exorbitant” maintenance was granted without considering the husband’s financial status. He also said the wife’s domestic violence charge was not believable.
The wife’s counsel countered that she had been granted a modest sum necessary to meet her and her daughter’s needs, given their cost of living. He also said she had worked at the private college only briefly on a nominal salary and that didn’t change her husband’s “moral and legal obligation” to maintain her and the child.
(Written by Avinash Verma, Avinash is an Intern with the Indian Express)
The Kerala High Court held that non-payment of maintenance itself is an economic abuse that would constitute an act of domestic violence. (AI-enhanced image)