Wife Entitled To Maintenance Under Two Separate Enactments, Quantum May Be Adjusted Accordingly: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected a petition filed by the husband challenging an order passed by the Family Court granting interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 to his wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He argued that the wife was already in receipt of Rs. 20,000 maintenance in proceedings instituted under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court said,

"The Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh (supra) has clearly observed that in the light of overlapping of jurisdictions, the grant of maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act would be in addition to the maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and also further holds that there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. or under the Hindu Marriage Act or even under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956."

The Court clarified that the only rider would be that the amount would not overlap and it would be inclusive of maintenance under each jurisdiction and not exclusive.

Coming to the next contention of the petitioner that he has lost his job and is not in a position to maintain his wife, the bench said "A perusal at the order impugned in the petition would clearly indicate that liability statements were placed before the concerned Court and the income of the husband is noticed and the fact that the wife has resigned her job and is residing in Mangalore is also noticed in addition to noticing that the petitioner continues to work in a particular Company at Bangalore. On noticing all these facts maintenance is awarded."

It also refused to hear the contention that the wife has deliberately resigned from her job after initiation of divorce proceedings only to harass the petitioner. It said that this would be a matter of evidence in trial.

Then referring to the apex court judgment in the case of Anju Garg and another v. Deepak Kumar Garg, the High Court reiterated that if the husband is an able bodied man, it is his duty to maintain his wife. It said, "The petitioner continues to work is what is not in dispute as is observed in the impugned order. Therefore, it becomes necessary for the petitioner to maintain his wife, by paying interim maintenance."

Case Title: Uday Nayak v. Anita Nayak

Case No: Writ Petition no.22006 of 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 504

Date of Order: 24th day of November, 2022

Appearance: P.P.Hegde, Sr.Advocate for Venkatesh Somareddi, advocate for petitioner.

Anandarama.K, advocate for c/r.