Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru (SP)

Bengaluru, Aug 16: The high court of Karnataka, in a path-breaking judgement, has ruled that a husband who does not officially divorce his first wife, and lives with another woman, is guilty of committing domestic violence. The high court, in awarding relief to the first wife, also dismissed the man's argument that his first wife had not made any claims for the last three decades during which period he lived away from her.

The high court, in its recent verdict, held that failure of the husband to maintain his wife, and his act in living with another woman with whom his relationship is not official, results in economic and emotional abuse of the first wife. Therefore, it said that the wife is eligible for relief under Domestic Violence Act. Accordingly, it refused to provide any relief to the man and upheld the judgement of the subordinate court to pay compensation and alimony to his estranged wife.

The judgement was delivered by a single judge bench of the high court presided over by Justice Rathnakala.

The woman in the case had come back to her parental home within a few months of marriage three decades ago after differences cropped up, and stayed with parents. She delivered a baby girl there, and after the marriage of her daughter, she was staying with her daughter and son-in-law.

In the meanwhile, her husband married a second time and had two children, with whom he stays. He retired from service in 2016. After the first wife approached magistrate's court recently seeking relief under Domestic Violence Act, the court had ordered the husband to pay alimony of Rs 10,000 per month and compensation of one lac rupees besides Rs 1,000 towards monthly rent. The husband went on appeal, where the court upheld his plea and reduced the monthly alimony to Rs 5,000, and compensation to Rs 50,000. The husband approached high court seeking to reduce this payment, while the wife sought higher relief. The high court upheld the order of the lower court.

The high court therefore dismissed the appeal of the man to annul the lower court's orders, and also quashed the appeal filed by the first wife for increase in the amount of alimony and compensation.