A husband cannot evade his legal responsibility towards his wife and minor child merely by claiming unemployment, a Delhi court has said while directing a man to pay ₹6,000 monthly maintenance to his son in a domestic violence case.

Additional Sessions Judge Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan was hearing an appeal filed by a woman challenging a trial court order that had denied her monetary relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act and allowed her plea.

In an order dated June 2, the court said, "It is for the respondent/husband to manage his expenses and merely giving the excuse that he is jobless or that he has other responsibilities... does not absolve him from maintaining his legally wedded wife and the minor son."

The court held that the husband, described as an able-bodied person, was capable of paying maintenance and directed him to pay ₹6,000 per month towards the upkeep of the child till he attains maturity.

The woman had alleged that after her marriage in February 2013, she was subjected to dowry harassment, physical assault and mental cruelty by her husband and his family members. She claimed she was thrown out of her matrimonial home during pregnancy and had been living separately with her son since 2015.

According to court records, the couple briefly reunited following a settlement before a family court in 2015 and stayed in a rented accommodation for a few months before separating again.

Abuse complaint dismissed

The trial court had dismissed the woman's complaint under the DV Act in September 2025, saying that she failed to prove allegations of domestic violence and economic abuse.

While the appellate court agreed that allegations of physical assault and cruelty were not substantiated through medical records or independent evidence, it found that the husband had failed to financially support the child since 2015.

"The respondent is equally responsible for maintaining the minor child," the court said, noting that the child had remained in the custody of the mother for several years without financial assistance from the father.

The judge also rejected the contention that the woman was not entitled to relief because she was educated.

"The capability to earn and actual earning are two different concepts," the court said, adding that the husband had failed to place on record any cogent material to prove that the woman was earning sufficiently to maintain herself and the child.

The court noted that the husband had not filed his income affidavit despite repeated opportunities before the trial court.

"I am of the considered opinion that respondent/ husband is capable of paying a maintenance amount of Rs 6000 to the minor son till he attains the age of majority from the date of present Order," the court said, modifying the earlier order and party allowed the appeal.