'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable

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