Under which circumstances the Court Can Order Husband To Pay Wife Monetary Expenses In Lieu Of Shared House?

 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. {Para 5}

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.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200071 OF 2016 (397)

SUNIL KUMAR S/O SAMUEL AND ORS Vs ELIZABETH W/O SUNIL KUMAR

BEFORE

 MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

DATED: 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

After hearing for some time, the learned counsel for the

Revision Petitioners has filed a Memo, which reads as under:

“That, the parties/Revision petitioners herein

undertake to pay the maintenance amount of

Rs.6,000/- per month as per the order of the Trial

Court and further undertakes to pay as additional

amount for alternate accommodation to the tune of

Rs.5,000/-. The same be kindly accepted and made

part of the record.

Hence, this Memo.”

2. The relief sought for in the main petition, is also

incorporated in the Memo.

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 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 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.

Accordingly, following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) While maintaining the order of the learned Trial

Magistrate and confirmed by the learned First Appellate Court to

pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/-, the first Revision

Petitioner is directed to pay another sum of Rs.5,000/- per

month in addition to Rs.6,000/- per month towards the

occupation of a similar accommodation of her choice, as per her

prayer either in the Chitagoppa or in Bidar, other than the

shared house hold in lieu a sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be

paid in lieu of the room to be provided as per the order of the

learned Trial Magistrate in the impugned order.

(iii) The arrears of maintenance if any is to be paid by

the Revision Petitioner No.1 within three months forthwith.

(iv) Failing which, the respondent is at liberty to take

appropriate action in accordance with law.

(v) Ordered accordingly.

Print Page