Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Posted on April 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 6-10,

6. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, though there is savings of exorbitant quantum of amount made deductible just to negate giving maintenance to the wife and child, what are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax. But considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.
7. While appreciating salary/income of the husband above stated deductions cannot be considered while calculating salary of husband. If this is allowed, then in every case of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there would be tendency by the husband to create artificial deductions making an attempt to show lesser take home salary with an intention to mislead the Courts in order to negate to give maintenance or an attempt to award to make lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, if the Court finds that the deductions are artificial deductions in the manner above discussed, then the Court has to consider the entire evidence on record on all its preponderance of probabilities while awarding quantum of maintenance amount. The deductions as above stated will ultimately enure to the benefit of the husband only. Suppose if the husband raises loan for purchase of site, house or car and the deduction is made from the salary and shown in his salary certificate, ultimately that raising of loan is for the benefit of husband only and just because deductions are made in this regard, it is not the ground to award lesser quantum of maintenance.
8. In the present case, the deductions is more than 50%, hence, it is proved that the husband has made an arrangement to show more deductions with an intention to pay lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, the said deductions above discussed cannot be the factor to award lesser quantum of maintenance to the wife. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner/husband is a Branch Manager working in State Bank of India receiving salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Then the Family Court is correct in awarding maintenance award of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the child/daughter, which needs no interference by this Court.
9. Therefore, it is proved that the respondents have become destitute at the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner is working as Manager in State Bank of India and receiving a lucrative salary per month and thus upon considering all these facts and circumstances, it is proved that the petitioner is financially capable person to maintain his wife and daughter. Thus, order passed by the Family Court need not be interfered with and as such, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits with cost of Rs.15,000/- payable to the respondents by the petitioner herein.

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 CrPC are here.

Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023

Posted on February 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Dharwad bench of Karnataka HC held that, the protection order does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act.

From Paras 14-17,

14. In the present case, provisions of Section 31 of the D.V. Act was pressed into service before the Trial Court essentially on ground that of arrears of the maintenance was not paid and therefore it paved for penal action under Section 31 of the D.V Act. The learned Magistrate has construed that even the non-payment of arrears of maintenance amounts to the violation of protection order and thereby Section 31 of the D.V. Act could be invoked.
15. Providing two separate reliefs, one under Section 18 of the D.V. Act for protection and another for monetary relief under Section 20 of the D.V. Act will have to be taken into consideration while analyzing the scope of Section 31 of the D.V. Act. If protection order was inclusive of monetary relief of granting maintenance, Section 20 of the D.V. Act would not have been separately provided.
16. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of the Mr. Francis Cyril C Cunha Vs. Smt Lydia Jane D’Cunha(supra) considering similar case has exhaustively dealt with the scope of Section 31 of the D.V. Act in the light of Sections 2(o), 18 and 20 of the D.V. Act and held that the protection order does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act.
17. In view of the matter, the approach of learned Magistrate in taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 31 of the D.V. Act is a glaring legal error and hence, the same will have to be set aside. Consequently, the proceedings against this petition in C.C.No/1/2022 pending on the file of the IV JMFC, Belagavi are requires to be quashed.

Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023

Index of DV judgments here.

Venus Remedies Ltd and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Oct 2023

Posted on February 7, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Dharwad bench of Karnataka HC held as follows:

From Paras 10 and 11,

10. In the application filed by the petitioners seeking recall of NBW, they have undertaken to appear before the Court if sufficient time is granted to them in para 13 of their application. The application of the petitioners seeking recall of NBW came to be rejected on the ground that they are not physically kept present. The Hon’ble Apex Court in SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL case (supra) as held that the NBW may be cancelled or converted into a bailable warrant/summons without insisting physical appearance of accused, if such an application is moved on behalf of the accused before execution of the NBW on an undertaking of the accused to appear physically on the next date/s of hearing.
11. The learned Magistrate erred in rejecting the application seeking recall of NBW only ground that they were not kept present either physically or in Video Conference and no affidavit is filed undertaking to appear on the next date on hearing. The application itself contains an undertaking of the accused persons that they will appear if sufficient time is given to them in para 13 of their application.

Venus Remedies Ltd and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Oct 2023

Index of NBW Judgments is here.

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Posted on September 14, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

The Kalaburigi bench of Karnataka High Court held that instead of accommodation in the shared household, money towards rent can be given to the aggrieved person.

From Paras 3-6,

3. As per Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [in short ‘DV Act’], wherever the Court feels to 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.
4. In the impugned order, the learned Trial Magistrate after exercising discretionary power granted a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly maintenance and a room to be given by the Revision Petitioner in the shared house.
5. Admittedly, 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.
6. Accordingly, this Court exercising its power as is contemplated 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. If a sum of Rs.5,000/- is being ordered, the respondent can find out a suitable alternate premises more than the room that would be provided in the shared house hold as ordered by the Trial Court, it would meet the ends of justice.

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Index of DV cases here.

Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023

Posted on August 14, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru bench held as follows,

From Para 8,

Admittedly, the petitioner No.1 was working prior to her marriage and it is asserted that after marriage she resigned the said job. But, there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. 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.

Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Domestic Violence Judgements is here.

N Rajeev Vs C Deepa on 26 July 2023

Posted on July 30, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge from Bengaluru bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Paras 2 and 3,

2. Notice to respondent spouse is dispensed with since no order adverse to her interest is being made and further she will have full opportunity of participation in the trial of the subject case at the hands of the court below. Added, she too will have the advantage of early disposal.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the proposition that the matrimonial causes should be tried & disposed off on a war footing, at least as a concession to the shortness of human life. It was Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881), a British historian of great repute who had said: “Life is too short to be little”. When a matrimonial case involves the prayer for the dissolution/nullity of marriage, courts should make all efforts to try & dispose off the same within an outer limit of one year, so that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may restructure their lives. It hardly needs to be stated ‘life is lost in living’. Delay in disposal of such cases very badly affects the parties thereto, needs no deliberation.
In the above circumstances, learned Family Court Judge is requested to accomplish the trial & disposal of the subject seven year old case preferably within an outer limit of three months, all contentions having been kept open.
The Registrar General of this court is instructed to circulate this judgment in all the concerned circles so that other similarly circumstanced litigants may not unnecessarily knock at the doors of this court seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of their cases.
Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the respondent-wife by Speed Post, immediately.

N Rajeev Vs C Deepa on 26 July 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102000202/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/64c14eeb843b5e67363850e6

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/karnataka-hc-courts-should-make-all-efforts-to-try-dispose-of-cases-involving-dissolution-of-marriage-within-one-year-1486930

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Posted on July 24, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Kalaburagi bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. The Appellate Court ought not to have gone into the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, unless and until the validity of the marriage has been challenged by the respondent before the appropriate Court and it is nullified by the competent Court having jurisdiction to pass such order. The Courts while dealing with the maintenance matters, either under Section 12 of the Act or under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should not go into the validity of the marriage. However, the Court may peruse the evidence of the wife as to whether she is able to maintain herself or not. Once the trial Court appreciated the evidence and passed an order of maintenance, the appellant Court may either modify it or set aside the same in case it is found that the wife is able to maintain herself. If any order passed by the appellant Court regarding the validity of the marriage or otherwise, it dehors its jurisdiction. In the present case, the Appellant Court gone into the validity of the marriage and set aside the order of maintenance passed under section 12 of the Act, which is beyond its jurisdiction and hence, it is liable to be set aside.

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index is here.

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Posted on July 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Karnataka High Court, after relying on Shivcharan and Sivakumar, held as follows,

From Para 14 and 15,

14. The ratio of these two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly indicates that, if the marriage between the husband and wife ended as null and void, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be sustained.
15. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant in her evidence, PW.2 being the mother of PW.1 both have consistently deposed and admitted that, PW.1 is the second wife of the petitioner. Accordingly, the concurrent findings of the Courts below in recording the conviction requires to be set aside.

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka HC, relying on case law here, held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. Unless it is shown from reliable evidence that there was demand made directly or indirectly from the parents of the complainant, Section 4 of the D.P. Act does not get attracted. In the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner in the case of Sankar Prosad Shaw v. The State, reported in 1991 Cri.L.J. 639, it has been held that, even mere demand is not sufficient but, it should be given or agreed to be given and at the most, mere demand may come under section 498a of the i.p.c. but not under Section 4 of the D.P. Act. For the above reason, conviction under Section 4 of the D.P. Act cannot be sustained in law.

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Citations: [2012 DMC 1 22]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1430200/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0ee77607dba38965ed263

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Posted on June 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 2,

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners finds fault with the impugned order contending that in matters like this, the fact that the parties are residing under the same roof, pales into insignificance except for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction. The fact that the spouses are residing in the same premises could not have been a ground for making the order of the kind. Such a flawed reasoning bewilders the Court, to say the least. Such a fact arguably may show the good culture of the spouses who are otherwise at loggerheads. The reason assigned by the Court below for denying relief to the parties constitutes as error of great magnitude apparent on the face of the record.
In view of the above, this Petition succeeds; a Writ of Certiorari issued quashing the impugned Order; matter is remitted to the portals of the learned Judge of the Court below, requesting him to pass a judgment and decree in terms of the Compromise Petition and the report of the Mediator. This is to be done at the earliest.

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023

Venus Remedies Ltd and Ors Vs State of Karnataka on 30 Oct 2023

Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023

Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023

N Rajeev Vs C Deepa on 26 July 2023

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Kantharaju Vs State of Karnataka on 17 Jul 2023

Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011

Divya Ganesh Nallur Vs Ganesh Nallur Shivu on 08 Jun 2023