You are currently viewing “<strong>๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—›๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ง๐—ผ ๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐—ช๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ฒ ๐— ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—˜๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—œ๐—ป ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜‚ ๐—ข๐—ณ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ”: ๐—ž๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฎ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜</strong>

๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ ๐—–๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—›๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ฑ ๐—ง๐—ผ ๐—ฃ๐—ฎ๐˜† ๐—ช๐—ถ๐—ณ๐—ฒ ๐— ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜† ๐—˜๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜€๐—ฒ๐˜€ ๐—œ๐—ป ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜‚ ๐—ข๐—ณ ๐—ฆ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—›๐—ผ๐˜‚๐˜€๐—ฒ”: ๐—ž๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฎ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜

Recently, the Karnataka High Court has modified an order passed by the Trial court in 2016 which directed a husband to pay an amount of Rs.6,000 to his estranged wife as monthly maintenance and a room be given to her for living in the shared house.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishanandaallowed the memo filed by the estranged husband who undertook to pay maintenance amount of Rs.6,000 per month and also an additional amount of Rs 5,000 for alternate accommodation to the woman.


The bench modified the order relying on Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that says that “wherever the Court feels convenient to order for monetary expenses in lieu of the shared house and also taking note of the relationship existing among the parties, a suitable order can be passed in terms of money.”

The bench said โ€œAdmittedly, the Revision Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent. However, the Revision Petitioner is living with first wife. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, directing the respondent to stay in the same house in a separate room would not be feasible practically and it may give rise to further displeasure among the parties resulting in civil/criminal litigation.โ€

Thus it held that under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, a sum of Rs.5,000/- be paid instead of the room be provided as the shared house.

It added โ€œIf a sum of Rs.5,000 is being ordered, the respondent can find a suitable alternate premises more than the room that would be provided in the shared household as ordered by the Trial Court, it would meet the ends of justice.โ€


Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200071 OF 2016

Leave a Reply