Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has saved a Kalaburagi woman, who has been ordered by the court of trial to get a separate house from family property with her beingolated husband.
Under section 12 women’s protection from the domestic violence law, 2005, the trial court has ordered the woman to be RS 3,000 a month, medical expenses and houses separate from the shared property.
It is challenged by father-in-law and female brother-in-law.
The High Court has said in a recent assessment ordered by court courts based on the domestic violence law apply to female father-in-law and sister-in-law if they enjoy family property together without any partition.
This case is related to the order passed by the first additional session judge in Kalaburagi, giving Rs 3,000 per month as a maintenance and medical expenditure to a woman.
The court also ordered him to be provided separately in Yelselangi Village from three houses owned by his in-laws.
Directions are also issued for payment of maintenance arrears within one month and the next direction is given to the jurisdiction police concerned to carry out court orders.
The woman’s husband, father-in-law and two brothers in-law challenged the court order.
The High Court, however, noted that the domestic incident report was clear that they were all (the applicant) being together and the family had 9 hectares of land and everything would get three hectares and no partitions occurred.
The Petitioner argued before the high court that the respondent’s wife had submitted a request to Shivakumar’s husband before the JMFC court in Indi and also other requests looking for instructions for prisoners of their children.
They argue that the wife lived separately from 2010 and the petition was submitted in 2013 to make its request to seek maintenance between other reliefs under section 12 of DV acting could not be maintained.
Another argument is that the lawsuit for the partition is waiting and no decision has passed.
The advice of respondents quoted a number of assessment of the Supreme Court and argued that the definition of disadvantaged people and permanent domestic relationships and acts of domestic violence was a sustainable violation and did not prohibit time.