Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court has held that the wife is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and must only seek "supportive" maintenance from her husband.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar was hearing a matrimonial case in which the wife had challenged the reduction of maintenance by an order of a civil and sessions court from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 and the compensation from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000.

While delving into the facts of the case, court noted that the wife was working prior to marriage and there was no reason as to why she couldn't resumer her work now. The single judge bench also pointed out in its order, while rejecting the revision petition under sections 397 and 401 IPC that she was residing with her mother in the rented house with her child. This house was separately taken by the husband, at the instance of the wife after she refused to stay with her mother in law and unmarried sister in law.

"It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1-husband is running provision stores. Further, he is having responsibility of taking care of his mother and unmarried sister. Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now," the court noted, adding that the woman was "legally bound" to make some efforts to meet her livelihood.

The wife had filed a petition before the lower court along with her child, under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance and compensation from her husband which was contested by the husband but allowed by the court.

However, the appellate court reduced the sum. The high court, on the other hand, refused to accept the submission of the petitioner wife and her child that the awarded compensation was a merger one and the appellate court had reduced it without any proper reasoning. The submission of the petitioners, that they were "incapable of maintaining themselves" was also not accepted.

Thus, the court rejected the revision plea of the petitioner-wife and her child and stated that the order of reducing maintenance does not warrant any interference.

Case Title: Name Witheld