Wife can seek maintenance under many laws, but amount will be adjusted- Karnataka HC
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.
The bench was asked to consider the following:
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
