karnataka high court

Karnataka High Court: While considering the instant revision petition challenging the reduction of maintenance granted to the petitioner-wife; the Bench of Rajendra Badamikar, J.*, rejected the petition and taking note of the facts stated that the petitioner-wife is not supposed to sit idle and seek entire maintenance from her husband and she is also legally bound to make some efforts to meet her livelihood and can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband.

The petitioners (wife and child) had filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the husband claiming maintenance and compensation. The petition was contested by the husband; however, the Magistrate awarded maintenance of Rs. 10,000 to the wife and Rs 5,000 was awarded to their child along with compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 for mental agony.

Aggrieved with the afore-stated verdict, the husband filed an appeal before the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, who reduced the maintenance from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5000/- so far as it relates to the wife and reduced the compensation amount from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000.

Being aggrieved by the afore-stated order, the wife and the child knocked the doors of the High Court.

The counsels for the petitioner submitted that compensation awarded was already a meagre one and the appellate Court without any proper reasoning reduced it further. It was further submitted that the petitioners are incapable of maintaining themselves and prayed before the Court to restore the order of the Magistrate.

Perusing the facts, contentions and the impugned order, the Court pointed out that Sessions Judge without considering the evidence in proper perspective, reduced the compensation from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 and also reduced the maintenance amount granted to the wife from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000.

The Court also pointed out that before her marriage, the wife was working and residing with her mother. Furthermore, even after her desertion she continued to stay in the rented house along with her mother and that she is not interested to stay with the husband and in-laws. The Court also took note of the fact that the husband runs a provision store and has responsibility of taking care of his mother and unmarried sister.

It was also noted that the wife resigned from her job after getting married. The Court pointed out that no explanations has been made so as to indicate that wife is incapable of working now.

Thus, the Court opined that the wife should not sit idle and is legally bound to make some efforts to meet her expenses and that she should seek only supportive maintenance from her husband.

[Shiplashree J.M. v. Gurumanjunatha A.S., 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 36, decided on 19-06-2023]

*Order by Justice Rajendra Badamikar

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner- Javeed S., Adv.;

For the respondents: G.S. Patil, Adv.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release


  • Wife is looking after her son and her mother( like her husband looking after his mother and unmarried sister). Looking after a kid is a responsibility of both parents. Running a family is whole lot than just running a provision store.. and its not less than any job in the world.. Women who were working before marriage were forced to leave job after marriage. Women have to spend time with kids for their good upbringing..why the court dint ask sister in law to work who is unmarried or mother in law to work instead of sitting idle..

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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