The Karnataka High Court recently held that a woman is not supposed to sit idle and seek the entire maintenance amount from her husband and must only seek “supportive” maintenance.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar was hearing a matrimonial case in which a woman had challenged the reduction in maintenance. A civil and sessions court had ordered it to be reduced from Rs 10,000 to Rs 5,000 and the compensation from Rs 3,00,000 to Rs 2,00,000.
While delving into facts of the case, the court noted that the woman was working before her marriage and there was no reason why she could not resume her work now. While rejecting the revision petition under sections 397 and 401 of the Indian Penal Code, the single judge bench also noted that the woman was residing with her mother and child in a rented house.
In its order, the judge also pointed out that her husband had rented the house in which she was now living, separate from the family home, as she had refused to stay with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law.
“It is an admitted fact that respondent no 1, the husband, is running provision stores. Further, he has the responsibility of taking care of his mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner no 1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now,” the court noted, adding that the woman was “legally bound” to make some effort to meet her livelihood.
The woman had filed a petition before the lower court along with her child, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and compensation from her husband that was contested by the husband but allowed by the court.
The appellate court, however, reduced the sum. The HC, on the other hand, refused to accept the submission of the wife and her child that the awarded compensation was a meagre; the appellate court had reduced it without any proper reasoning. The submission of the petitioners that they were “incapable of maintaining themselves” was also not accepted.
The court said there was no concrete evidence on the basis of which the compensation was fixed and it was not challenged either. Therefore, the question of interfering with the order did not arise.
Comments
0 comment