Court directs “gay” husband to pay maintenance to wife

Mumbai Domestic violence is not limited to physical injuries or abuses but also includes, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse that a woman faces at her matrimonial home, the sessions said recently while rejecting an appeal filed by a city resident, challenging a magisterial court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife

Mumbai Domestic violence is not limited to physical injuries or abuses but also includes, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse that a woman faces at her matrimonial home, the sessions said recently while rejecting an appeal filed by a city resident, challenging a magisterial court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife.

HT Image

The wife had initiated a case under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005 alleging that the marriage was not consummated as her husband was gay and was involved in relationship with other men which caused her mental stress.

The sessions court held that “the term domestic violence incorporates for a wider scope and it is not at all limited for mere physical injuries or abuses, but the same can also be stretched to sexual, verbal, emotional and economical abuse.”

The sessions court was hearing the appeal filed by the husband challenging the order of the magistrate court directing him to pay ₹12,000 every month towards maintenance and house rent to his wife. The court had also asked husband to pay her additional amount of ₹1 lakh towards compensation.

The husband in his appeal claimed that the wife did not allow him to consummate the marriage, as she was preparing for a competitive examination. He claimed that she herself was not ready to cohabit in the matrimonial home. He also claimed that the wife had failed to provide any evidence to support her allegations that he was gay.

The wife, on the other hand, had alleged that the husband had failed to consummate the marriage for at least six months after they started residing together at his residence in Eastern Mumbai. The couple was married in December 2016, but they started residing together in January 2017.

She claimed that in March 2017, she noticed her husband “sex chatting with some other male. It also came to her notice that he had created a fictitious Facebook account wherein he was seen in compromising position with other men.

At the conclusion of six months of the marriage wife claimed that there was no marital intercourse or any such affection from her husband and the atmosphere of such strained relationship continued at the matrimonial house and therefore she returned back to her maternal house.

Accepting her claims, the sessions court upheld the magistrate court order and dismissed the husband’s appeal.