If a wife is able to maintain herself and continue with same lifestyle as she was accustomed to in matrimonial home, can she still be granted maintenance? Court deciphers

City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore: Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi, LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge upheld the order of the trial court which had refused to grant maintenance to the petitioner-wife.

Petitioner wife preferred the present appeal on being aggrieved by the orders passed for an application filed under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Parties:

Appellant-Petitioner (wife) and Respondents 1 &2 (husband and mother-in-law)

Petition was filed before the trial court under Section 12 of the Act and sought protection, order of monthly maintenance, medical expenses and also to pay back Rs 2 lakhs gifted to the respondent 1 and also return gold ornaments given at the time of marriage and also to refund Rs 4,50,000 spent on marriage by parents of the appellant and refund of Rs 50,000 towards medical expenses.

It was stated that respondent 1 after two months of marriage started to treat the wife as slave and sexual object and not show any love. Respondent 1 gave physical and mental torture to abort the child.

Once when the wife tried to escape, kerosene was poured to kill her.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Bench noted that to show domestic violence, there was no evidence at all.

Although the domestic violence is incident which happens within four walls of the house. No independent evidence can be expected.

 Duration of the marriage was quite short.

As far as the appellant was considered, she was able to maintain herself and she could put her same stand of living.

There was no necessity to award maintenance for her separately and with regard to findings of the trial that no domestic violence was proved was correct. Even on re-appreciation of evidence no instance of domestic violence was proved. Although the trial court without asking maintenance for the minor child graciously awarded maintenance which was correct and did not require any interference.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. [Roopa M.R., v. Krishan, Crl. A. No. 45 of 2018, decided on 6-11-2021]


Advocates before the Court:

For the appellant:

B.V.K Advocate

For the Respondents:

B.S.N., Advocates

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.