Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan 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

Latest Legal News