Wife being able-bodied to earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband from providing her maintenance, and calling her a "parasite" is an insult to her as well as the entire womankind, the Delhi High Court has said.

The court, while dealing with a husband's plea challenging a lower court's direction to pay maintenance to his wife, observed that Indian women leave their jobs to look after the family, cater to the needs of their children and to look after their husbands and his parents.

The petitioner husband, who was stated to have abandoned his wife and children and was living with another woman, was ordered by the trial court to pay Rs 30,000 per month as maintenance to his wife, along with Rs 5 lakh towards the "injuries" sustained by her, including mental torture, depression and emotional distress.

The trial court had also directed him to pay Rs 3 lakh as compensation to his wife, including Rs 30,000 as litigation costs.

Challenging the order, the petitioner argued in the high court that his wife was an able-bodied lady who has worked in a boutique and, therefore, she could not be allowed to become a "parasite" by misusing the law.

The court refused to interfere with the directions and said the fact that the wife is capable of earning cannot work to her detriment.

The court, in a recent order, noted that the financial and asset profile of the petitioner reflected a "comfortable and affluent lifestyle" and, therefore, he was in a position to pay Rs 30,000 per month as maintenance.

"The fact that the Respondent (wife) is able bodied and can earn a livelihood does not absolve a husband not to provide maintenance to his wife and children. Indian women leave their jobs to look after the family, cater to the needs of their children, look after their husbands and his parents.

"The contention that the Respondent is only a parasite and is abusing the process of law is nothing but an insult not only to the Respondent herein but to the entire women kind," said Justice Subramonium Prasad while dismissing the petition.

The court, in the order, also said the wife was a victim of domestic violence.

The court said the term 'domestic violence' includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse and all other forms of abuse which can be inflicted on a lady.

"The Respondent had to leave her matrimonial house because she was unable to tolerate the fact that her husband is living with another woman. Since the Respondent/Wife was not in a position to take care of her two children, she had no option to leave them with the parents of the Petitioner herein," the court observed.

"In the complaint filed by the Respondent/Wife, it is stated that she was subjected to physical and mental abuse by the Petitioner herein. No lady can tolerate that her husband is cohabiting with another lady and has a child from her. All these facts make the Respondent/Wife a victim of Domestic Violence," added the court.

The court stated that section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code and section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act are "tools of social justice" which ensure that the women and children are protected from a life of potential vagrancy and destitution.

It added that section 125 entails that if the husband has sufficient means, he is obligated to maintain his wife and children, and not shirk away from his moral and familial responsibilities.

A husband cannot avoid his obligation to maintain his wife and children except if any legally permissible ground is contained in the law, said the court.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.