Karnataka High Court: Court Can Order Husband To Pay Wife The Monetary Expenses In Lieu Of Shared House [The Domestic Violence Act]


The Karnataka High Court in the case ABC & others And XYZ observed and has recently modified an order passed by the Trial court, wherein it has been directed by the court that a woman is to be paid an amount of Rs.6,000 as monthly maintenance and a room be given to her for living in the shared house of the estranged husband.
The Single judge bench headed by Justice V Srishananda in the case observed and has allowed the memo which is being filed by the estranged husband who undertook to pay maintenance for an amount of Rs.6,000 per month and also an additional amount is to be paid of Rs 5,000 for alternate accommodation to the woman.
The said order has been modified by the bench that the order relying on Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that stated that wherever the Court feels convenient to order for the monetary expenses in lieu of the shared house and the court while also taking note of the relationship existing among the parties, the court can pass a suitable order in terms of money.
In the present case, it has been stated by the bench that the Revision Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the respondent. Therefore, the revision petitioner in the plea is being living with first wife. The court while taking a note of these aspects of the matter, wherein the court directed 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 which resulted in civil or criminal litigation.
Accordingly, it has been held by the court while exercising its power as is contemplated under Section 19(1)(f) of the DV Act, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is to be paid instead of the room which is to be provided as the shared house.
Adding to it, it has been stated by the court that 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 household as ordered by the Trial Court, the same would meet the ends of justice.
Accordingly, the court allowed the revision