Karnataka HC Upholds Reduction Of Maintenance To 'Capable' Wife; Says She Can't Sit Idle, Can Only Seek 'Supportive Maintenance' From Husband
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a woman challenging the order of the Appellate court reducing the maintenance and compensation amount granted to her by the Magistrate court on filing of an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed that the petitioner-wife was...
The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a woman challenging the order of the Appellate court reducing the maintenance and compensation amount granted to her by the Magistrate court on filing of an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed that the petitioner-wife was working prior to her marriage and there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. It added,
“She is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband.”
The woman and the child challenged the order of the Sessions court reducing the maintenance granted to the woman from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 and compensation from Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.2,00,000.
The petitioners contended that the compensation awarded is meagre one and the Appellate Court without any proper reasonings has reduced the maintenance.
The High Court noted that the Appellate Court has confirmed the order granting maintenance to the child.
It also noted that the petitioner-wife was unwilling to live with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. The husband, who is running provision stores, had the responsibility of taking care of his mother and unmarried sister. Accordingly it observed,
“Looking to the above facts and circumstances and considering the conduct of petitioner No.1, the order of maintenance awarded by the First Appellate Court by reducing from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 does not call for any interference. As regards compensation amount, there is no material evidence as to on what basis the compensation was quantified. However, it was not challenged and the question of interfering with the said order does not arise at all.”
It thus dismissed the petition.
Case Title: XYZ & ANR And Gurumanjunatha A S & Others
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition no.1324 of 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 252
Date of Order: 19-06-2023
Appearance: Advocate Javeed S for petitioners
Advocate G S Patil for respondents.