Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.
Smt P. Jayanthi Reddy, W/o. G. Ramana Reddy and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Sri G. Ramana Reddy, S/o. G. Suryanarayana Reddy – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No.526 of 2025
Decided On : 03-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sri Adinarayanappa, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri Keshava Murthy B., Adv.

Unproven allegations of adultery do not disqualify a wife from receiving interim maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23(2) - Interim maintenance - Maintenance granted to wife initially at Rs.8000/- per month and Rs.5000/- to child was modified by appellate court, limiting it to child only based on allegations of adultery against wife - Court emphasized that such claims require proof at trial - Previous cases stressed entitlement to maintenance cannot be negated by unproven allegations. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, a wife and son, sought interim maintenance after husband allegedly drove them from their home, demanding dowry. Respondent claimed the wife was living in adultery and sought to deny maintenance.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court's decision to revoke the wife’s maintenance was improper as unproven allegations of adultery do not disqualify her from interim assistance under the D.V. Act.

Issues: Whether allegations of adultery justified the abrogation of interim maintenance for the wife and whether such accusations must be proved in trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintains that allegations of adultery do not suffice to deny interim maintenance; proof at trial is necessary. Previous judgments corroborate this stance.

Result: Revision petition allowed; original maintenance order reinstated.

Table of Content
1. background of the case and interim maintenance order. (Para 1 , 3 , 4)
2. judicial review of interim maintenance processes. (Para 2)
3. arguments regarding entitlement to maintenance due to allegations of adultery. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's analysis and ruling on interim maintenance based on evidence. (Para 7 , 9 , 11)
5. legal reasoning regarding establishment of adultery for maintenance entitlement. (Para 8 , 10)

ORDER :

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR, J.)

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 14.03.2025 passed in Crl.A. No. 47/2023 by the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the order dated 13.04.2023 passed in Crl.Misc. No. 653/2022 by I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District has been partly confirmed with modification that petitioner No. 2 alone is entitled for interim monthly maintenance.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent.

3. Brief facts of the case are, that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No. 2 is the son of respondent. Marriage of petitioner No. 1 and respondent was solemnized on 14.02.2019 in the presence of well wishers and elders of both the family. After marriage petitioner No.1 and respondent started living in his house. They begot one male child. Thereafter, respondent and his family members started quarreling with petitioner No.1 for silly reasons and therefore, respondent decided to reside separately and made separate house near Marathahalli. After few months respondent started quarrelling with petitioner No.1 demanding dowry and drove her away along with baby on 30.06.2020. Respondent and his family members started quarrelling with petitioner No. 1 demanding to get registered land and property belonging to her father towards additional dowry. Therefore, petitioners started to reside in her parent’s house. Respondent never visited the house of parents of petitioner No. 1 even to see their child. On these grounds petitioners made an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Respondent No. 1 and other respondents in that petition appeared and filed objections. Petitioners filed I.A. No. 1 under Section 23 (2) of the D.V. Act seeking interim maintenance. Respondent has filed objections to the said application. In the said application respondent has taken up a contention that petitioner is living in adultery with a person. After hearing both sides learned Magistrate has passed order on I.A. No. 1 allowing it in part and directing the respondent to pay interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to petitioner No. 2 from the date of petition till disposal of the main petition. Said order on I.A. No. 1 has been challenged by the respondent before the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 47/2023. The Sessions Court has partly allowed the said appeal and operative portion of the said order reads thus:

“The Appeal preferred by the appellant-husband U/S 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic from Violence Act (PWDV Act), 2005 is partly allowed.

The orders passed by the learned I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District on I.A.No.1 dated 13-04-2023 in C.Mis.No.653/2022 is hereby confirmed with following modifications;

The respondent is directed to pay interim monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner No.2 only from the date of orders passed by the learned court till disposal of the petition.

No orders as to cost.”

4. Aggrieved by the said order petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the appellate Court erred in setting aside the interim maintenance granted to petitioner No. 1 wife only on the ground of adultery. Said contention of respondent that petitioner No.1 is living in adultery has to be established at trial. Merely because respondent has taken up the contention that petitioner No. 1 is living in adultery with some person is not a ground for setti