News Summary:
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled on RPFC No. 94 of 2018, a case revolving around the denial of maintenance to a wife in a disputed divorce scenario. Here’s a simplified overview:
Background:
Smt. S. Geethanjali, the petitioner, filed a petition seeking maintenance after her husband, Sri. Manjunath T.M., accused her of adultery and obtained an ex-parte divorce decree in M.C. No. 23/2009.
Disputed Allegations:
The Family Court rejected Geethanjali’s maintenance petition, citing her failure to contest the divorce petition, where allegations of adultery were made against her. However, Geethanjali’s counsel argued that mere allegations without evidence should not warrant denial of maintenance.
Lack of Evidence:
The High Court scrutinized the divorce proceedings and noted that the allegations of adultery lacked substantive proof. Despite not contesting the divorce petition, Geethanjali’s silence did not amount to acceptance of the allegations.
Legal Obligation:
Highlighting the husband’s obligation to maintain his wife, especially in the absence of concrete evidence supporting the allegations, the court ordered Manjunath T.M. to pay Geethanjali Rs. 8,000 per month as maintenance.
Financial Viability:
The court also considered Manjunath’s financial status, evidenced by agricultural properties and coconut business. This assessment led to the decision to grant maintenance to Geethanjali.
Final Ruling:
The High Court allowed Geethanjali’s petition, setting aside the Family Court’s order and directing Manjunath to pay maintenance until Geethanjali’s remarriage or lifetime, whichever comes first.
In summary, the Karnataka High Court’s ruling underscores the importance of substantiated evidence in maintenance disputes, ensuring fairness and justice in matrimonial matters.
