6 Oct 2023 1:06 PM GMT
The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife cannot claim maintenance from her husband under section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, when she is in an adulterous relationship with another person.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar rejected the revision petition filed by the wife seeking to set aside the order of the Sessions court which in turn had set aside the order of maintenance granted in favour of the wife by the Magistrate court on her making an application.
The bench said,
The magistrate court had on the application of the wife made under Section 12 of the Act granted a protection order under Section 18 of the Act and awarded maintenance of Rs.1,500 to her and Rs.1,000 towards rent allowance and Rs.5,000 as compensation.
The husband challenged the order before the sessions court which set aside the impugned order passed by the Magistrate.
The wife contended that she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and it is the duty of the husband to maintain his wife. It was asserted that since he is having an illicit relationship with his relative, domestic violence is required to be inferred.
The husband opposed the plea stating the petitioner had eloped with a neighbour and all along, she refused to stay with him and showed her interest to stay with her paramour. Thus, he said though she is a legally wedded wife, looking at her conduct and having illicit relationship, she is not entitled for any maintenance.
The bench went through the evidence of the witnesses examined by the husband which supported his contention that the wife had eloped and was staying with the neighbour. It then observed,
Rejecting the allegation made by the wife that the husband is having an illicit relationship with the daughter of his sister-in-law, the court said, “Since the petitioner is claiming maintenance, she must prove that she is honest and when she herself is not honest, she cannot pin-point her fingers towards her husband.”
Following which it observed, “The learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate any of these aspects and in a mechanical way, awarded the maintenance and compensation, which is a perverse order. The learned Sessions judge has re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in view of the fact that she was leading an adulterous life.”
Appearance: Advocate Yadunandan N for Advocate Gururaj R for Petitioner.
Advocate Lokesha P C for Respondent.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
Case Title: ABC & XYZ