Shri Vishal Kaushik v Shipra Kaushik, 2013 (2) WLN 611
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against the husband. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- p.m. as maintenance to the wife. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the sessions court where the maintenance amount was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-p.m. Thereafter the husband filed a revision in the High Court contending that the wife was adulterous and that she had left the matrimonial house on her own accord, hence he was not obligated to maintain her. He further contended that the investigation reports in her criminal cases show that there are false allegations against him and his family.
Dismissing the petition, the Chandigarh High Court held that since the wife was living separately from her husband and was not in a position to bear the economic expenses, it was the responsibility of the husband to maintain her according to law and the Hindu Shastras. It further held that the proceedings in the criminal case were still pending before the competent court. So, only on the basis of the final report given by the police, no adverse inference can be drawn against the wife. Both the courts have passed orders on interim maintenance and the parties are free to lead evidence before the magistrate. Further, mere production of the letter in support of the arguments that the wife is having relation with another person is not sufficient for any court to render a decision. With regards to the enhancement, the court further held that in fixing the quantum of maintenance, standard of living consistent with the status of the family must be taken into consideration. The husband cannot say that he is unable to maintain his wife and children or that the wife is educated and competent to earn.
Vidyawati v Shri Kishen, 2013 CriLJ 4469
The husband harassed and assaulted his wife and children regularly, thereafter the wife was thrown out of the house, and was not provided maintenance. The husband also obtained an ex parte divorce decree against his wife against which she filed an application for setting aside the decree, which was pending. The wife also filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking monetary reliefs and maintenance. The husband contended that the petition was not maintainable as the wife had left the house prior to the DV Act coming in force and also that she was earning well and was also having an affair. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m. as maintenance. Aggrieved, the husband appealed in the sessions court where it was held that the petition was maintainable and the allegation of adultery was supported by the evidence produced by the daughters. Thereafter the wife filed an appeal in the High Court.
Setting aside the sessions court’s order, the Calcutta High Court held that the allegation of adultery is only supported by his daughter and not by his other children and hence did not inspire confidence of the court. It further held that the sessions judge erred in refusing relief only on the ground of adultery, as the petition was rightly held to be maintainable and was not barred by any limitation.