The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a woman challenging the order of the Appellate court reducing the maintenance and compensation amount granted to her by the Magistrate court on filing of an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed that the petitioner-wife was working prior to her marriage and there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. It added,
She 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 she can seek only supportive maintenance from her husband.
The
woman and the child challenged the order of the Sessions court reducing the
maintenance granted to the woman from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 and
compensation from Rs.3,00,000 to Rs.2,00,000.
The
petitioners contended that the compensation awarded is meagre one and the
Appellate Court without any proper reasonings has reduced the maintenance.
The
High Court noted that the Appellate Court has confirmed the order granting
maintenance to the child.
It
also noted that the petitioner-wife was unwilling to live with her
mother-in-law and unmarried sister- in-law. The husband, who is running
provision stores, had the responsibility of taking care of his mother and
unmarried sister. Accordingly, it observes.
Looking
to the above facts and circumstances and considering the conduct of petitioner
No.1, the order of maintenance awarded by the First Appellate Court by reducing
from Rs.10,000 to Rs.5,000 does not call for any interference. As regards
compensation amount, there is no material evidence as to on what basis
the compensation was quantified. However, it was not challenged and the
question of interfering with the said order does not arise at all.
Date
of Order: 19-06-2023
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks