The Karnataka High Court ruled that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act applies exclusively to breaches of protection orders, not maintenance orders, ruling out jail for non-payment. This judgment clarifies that non-compliance with monetary relief does not attract criminal liability under Section 31 of the DV Act.
A Court in Cuttack dismissed actress Varsha Priyadarshini’s domestic violence complaint against her estranged husband, Anubhav Mohanty, citing lack of evidence and contradictory statements. The judge noted that her claims seemed like a reaction to Mohanty’s divorce filing. Varsha’s requests for financial relief were also denied.
The Orissa High Court criticized husbands who deliberately remain idle to evade paying maintenance to their wives and children. The court emphasized that such actions must be condemned. In a previous ruling, the same judge had also disapproved of wives who stay unemployed solely to claim maintenance.
Patna: The Patna High Court ruled that a father-in-law is not automatically required to provide maintenance to his widowed daughter-in-law under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA). The court stated that such liability arises only if the father-in-law has sufficient income from coparcenary property. The case originated from a Criminal Revision petition filed by a widowed woman seeking financial support from her late husband’s family.
The Supreme Court ruled that referring to a woman in a void marriage as an “illegitimate wife” is misogynistic and inappropriate. The bench emphasized that such language undermines her dignity and is legally incorrect. The court stressed the importance of respectful terminology in legal matters. This judgment reinforces the need to uphold women’s rights and dignity in all circumstances.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India ruled that a woman is entitled to claim maintenance from her second husband under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), even if her first marriage is legally still valid. A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the plea of a woman against a 2017 High Court ruling. The High Court had denied her maintenance on the grounds that her first marriage was legally subsisting. However, it had allowed maintenance for the daughter born from her second marriage.