Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Requirement for Wife to Fund Husband’s Travel from the USA in Matrimonial Cross-Examination
Karnataka High Court
SINDHU BOREGOWDA V. YASHWANTH BHASKAR B P
WRIT PETITION NO.24827 OF 2022 (GM-FC)
Bench- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
Decided On 05-06-2023
Facts of the case-
In Bengaluru, a husband has initiated divorce proceedings by filing a petition for dissolution of marriage. The trial of the case is currently halfway through, but the husband is residing in the United States. On November 16, 2022, the family court issued an order granting the wife permission to cross-examine her husband. However, the court imposed a condition that the wife must cover the expenses for her travel.
The petitioner’s lawyer argued that his client is already paying a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000 to the wife, and there are still some outstanding dues. Therefore, the counsel asserted that it was unreasonable to require the wife to bear the significant cost of the travel expenses. The husband opposed this plea.
Judgement
The court has overturned a previous order issued by the Family Court, which allowed the wife’s application to cross-examine her husband under the condition that she bear his travel expenses of Rs 1.65 lakhs from the USA to Bengaluru. The bench noted that the lower court had already directed the payment of a monthly maintenance amount of Rs. 20,000 to the petitioner, who lacks a means of livelihood. The bench questioned the logic behind requiring the petitioner to cover the travel expenses of the respondent, who is gainfully employed in the United States of America.
Furthermore, the bench expressed concerns about the petitioner’s ability to afford such a payment, especially considering that it was the respondent’s choice to travel and incur those expenses. The bench clarified that the respondent-husband is not financially incapable and, therefore, should have been responsible for his own travel expenses since he initiated the Marriage Dissolution Case. The bench emphasized that if it were the petitioner-wife who had filed the case, different considerations might have arisen.
Consequently, the petition was granted, and the court requested the lower court to arrange for cross-examination or further cross-examination at the convenience of both parties.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”