In the case of Shiplashree J.M. v. Gurumanjunatha A.S revision petition contesting the petitioner-wife’s maintenance decrease. Under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the petitioners’ wife and child had filed a petition against the husband, requesting support and compensation. The husband objected to the petition, but the Magistrate granted maintenance payments of Rs. 10,000 to the wife and Rs. 5,000 to their kid, along with Rs. 3,000,000 in damages for mental anguish. Angry about the aforementioned ruling the husband appealed to the Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, who decreased the maintenance for the wife from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5000 and the compensation from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,000. The wife and the kid knocked on the doors of the High Court after feeling offended by the aforementioned decision.
Submission from parties
The petitioner’s solicitors argued that the compensation previously granted was little and that the appeal Court decreased it further without providing any justification. Additionally, it was claimed that the petitioners couldn’t support themselves and asked the court to reinstate the magistrate’s ruling.
Analysis of court order
The petition was denied by the single judge bench of the Karnataka high court, Justice Rajendra Badamikar, who noted the facts and noted that the petitioner’s wife was legally required to work towards supporting herself and was only allowed to request supportive maintenance from her husband, not entire maintenance
The Sessions Judge cut the compensation from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 2,00,000 without properly weighing the facts, and he also decreased the wife’s maintenance award from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000. The wife was employed and living with her mother before being married, the court also noted. Additionally, even after leaving her husband and in-laws, she remained to live there with her mother and showed no interest in returning home. The spouse manages a supply business and is responsible for looking after his mother and unmarried sister, which was also noted by the court. It was also mentioned that the wife quit her employment following the marriage. The Court emphasised that no justifications had been offered to suggest that the wife was now unable to hold a job. As a result, the Court held that the woman should not remain passive and is required by law to make some attempt to pay her bills and that she should only ask her husband for supporting maintenance.
CASE NAME – Shiplashree J.M. v. Gurumanjunatha A.S., Criminal Revision Petition No. 1324 of 2015.