The Court was hearing an appeal by a woman and her child challenging the order of the sessions court (appellate court) reducing the maintenance granted to the woman from ₹10,000 to ₹5,000 and compensation from ₹3,00,000 to ₹2,00,000.

The petitioners argued that the compensation awarded was insufficient, and that the appellate court had reduced the maintenance without providing adequate justifications.

Single-judge Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed that the woman was working before her marriage, and there was no explanation given regarding why she was not working presently.

“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 Court noted.

The High Court noted that the appellate court had confirmed the order granting maintenance to the child and only the maintenance to the wife was reduced.

Additionally, it was observed that the wife expressed her unwillingness to reside with her mother-in-law and unmarried sister-in-law. Further, the Court also noted that the husband, who operates provision stores, was responsible for the care of his mother and unmarried sister.

“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.”

In light of the above ruling, the Court dismissed the wife’s plea.

Case Title: XYZ & ANR And Gurumanjunatha A S & Others

Case No: Criminal Revision Petition no.1324 of 2015