This case deals with economic abuse aspect of Domestic Violence Act.

From Para 21,

Though she deposed the above allegations in the above manner the said alleged facts stated by petitioner in her chief examination were not mentioned in her petition. For the 1st time she came up with all the above allegations in her evidence. Moreover if really her version of allegations about respondent family is true that is the respondent family trying to kill her, no women will be dare enough to stay in her in laws house even after their attempt to kill her. Further on this aspect it is also stated by her that her parents would come on the next day after receiving the information which is unbelievable. So, all the allegations against respondent and his family members appeared unbelievable and omnibus allegations.

The cherry on the cake declaration by the judge come in this para 23. Enjoy the misandrist rhetoric…

But he is not doing so, the same is also admitted by him in his cross examination that he is not paying any maintenance to pay the petitioner and his daughter. So, such attitude of remaining idle without maintaining his wife and child depending upon others also creates a mental agony to the Indian wife, particularly as the husband is bounded to maintain his family even though she is divorced unable to maintain herself. Moreover, it is also settled legislation that a able bodied husband is liable to maintain his wife and children even though he has no employment. Hence, the circumstances and the attitude of the respondent comes under purview of economic abuse as per domestic violence act. Hence, it is well established by the petitioner that she faced economic abuse in the hands of respondents. Accordingly she is entitled for maintenance.