The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court recently ruled that a wife can seek maintenence under two or more enactments, but the amount of maintenence will be adjusted accordingly.
The bench was dealing with a petition challenging the order granting interim maintenence of Rupees 30,000/- per month to his wife (respondent).
The facts of the case are as,
The petitioner and the respondent got married and had no children from the wedlock. The respondents and his family alleged harrassment and registers a complaint under section 498A, 506, 313 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The respondent also filed a petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri wherein maintenance is also sought in the petition.
The court granted an interim maintenence of Rs. 20,000/- to the wife after considering the interim application seeking maintenence.
It was alleged that this order was passed without hearing the husband, the petitioner challenged the order before the Additional District & Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Judge.
Aggrieved, the petitoner prefered a petition before the Hon’ble High Court invoking Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The issue for consideration before the bench was:
Whether the order passed by the Family High Court needs interference or not?
The bench relied upon Rajnesh v. Neha where it was observed that “in the light of overlapping of jurisdictions, the grant of maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act would be in addition to the maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and also further holds that there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. or under the Hindu Marriage Act or even under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.”
The High Court opined that it is necessary for the petitioner to maintain his wife by paying interim maintenence.
High Court opined that it becomes necessary for the petitioner to maintain his wife, by paying interim maintenance. No fault can be found with the order passed by the concerned Court granting such maintenance to the wife.
In view of the above, the bench rejected the petition.
Case Title: Uday Nayak v Anita Nayak
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Case No.: WRIT PETITION No.22006 OF 2022 (GM-FC)
Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.P. Hegde
Counsel for the respondent: Sri K. Anandarama
