Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

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