Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court

Wife can seek maintenance under many laws, but amount will be adjusted- Karnataka HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Karnataka High Court regulations, a wife may request maintenance under two or more different statutes, however the amount will be adjusted proportionally.

The case contesting the Family Court order providing interim support of Rs. 30,000 per month to be given to his wife/respondent was being handled by the Justice M. Nagaprasanna bench.

In this case, the petitioner and respondent were wed but did not have any children together. The respondent registers a crime for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506, 313 and 34 of the IPC, alleging harassment by the petitioner and members of his family.

The respondent then submits a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri, in which maintenance is also requested.

The relevant Court issues an order giving maintenance to the respondent/wife at a rate of Rs. 20,000 per month after taking into account the interim application for maintenance.

The petitioner challenges the stated ruling before the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, who dismissed it, alleging that the decree was made without consulting the spouse.

A petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner, who is enraged by both proceedings. and the Court issues a temporary order stopping any further lawsuits brought under the DV Act.

Whether or if the Family High Court's order requires interference.

The bench cited the ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, where it was said that "in light of jurisdictional overlap, the provision of support 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 further declares that neither the DV Act nor Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. prohibit the pursuit of maintenance. or even under the 1956 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, or the Hindu Marriage Act.

According to the High Court, the petitioner must support his wife by making interim maintenance payments. There is nothing wrong with the court's ruling providing the wife this support; it was properly issued.

The bench dismissed the petition in light of the aforementioned.

Uday Nayak vs Anita Nayak 

Latest Legal News