MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |    

Justice Not Merely for the Rich but for the Vulnerable: High Court of Karnataka Upholds Maintenance and Residence Rights under DV Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition No. 14 of 2019, filed by Sri B V Mohan Babu against Smt. Bhavya A, upholding the lower courts' rulings on maintenance and residence rights under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).

The judgment addressed the critical issue of maintenance and residence rights under the DV Act. The petitioner contested the order by the LXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, which granted relief to the respondent, including a monthly maintenance of Rs. 25,000, 50% of the child's educational expenses, and protection against domestic violence.

The respondent claimed marriage in 2006 and payment of Rs. 5 lakh dowry. Allegations of domestic violence and harassment led to the DV Act petition and criminal cases under Sections 498A of IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The trial court concluded domestic violence and ordered the petitioner to provide maintenance and prohibit interference with the respondent's residence.

The High Court meticulously assessed each legal point. The Court observed, "When the respondent is residing in the matrimonial home after the marriage... and criminal case also initiated against the petitioner... the contention that he will take care of the respondent cannot be accepted." The Court highlighted the petitioner's income of Rs. 1,70,000/- per month in relation to the maintenance awarded. Emphasizing the limited scope of revision, the Court found no legal error in the Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s decisions regarding maintenance and residence rights under the DV Act.

The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. The Court’s stance reinforces the protection of vulnerable sections under the DV Act, asserting that justice is not just for the affluent but also for those in need of protection and support.

Date of Decision: 28th February 2024

Sri B V Mohan Babu Vs. Smt. Bhavya A

Similar News