Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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

Latest Legal News