Writ Petition No. 11125 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 11125 OF 2021 (GM-FC) WRIT PETITION NO. 7416 OF 2020 (GM-FC) C/W IN WP No. 11125/2021 BETWEEN: MR. RAVINDRA. T, S/O. MR. TYAGARAJU. C, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.150, 4TH CROSS, AYYAPPA LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALU, MARATHAHLLI POST, BANGALORE – 560037.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. HARSHITH C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHABALESHWAR CHITRIGEMATH, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: SMT. SHILPA .G, W/O. RAVINDRA .T, D/O. MR. GOPAL REDDY .A, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.890, 4TH CROSS, FERN PARADISE, DODDANEKKUNDI, BENGALURU - 560037. (BY SRI. KRISHNA NAIK, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR 06.12.2019 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV AND I.A.NO.V IN M.C.NO.33/2018 BY THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BANGALORE, MARKED AT ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. IN WP NO. 7416/2020 BETWEEN: SMT. SHILPA .G, W/O. SHRI. RAVINDRA .T, D/O. SHRI. GOPAL REDDY .A, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT.NO.890, 4TH CROSS, FERN PARADISE, DODDANEKKUNDI, BANGALORE-560 037. (BY SRI. KRISHNA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. RAVINDRA. T, S/O. SHRI TYAGARAJU .C, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.150, 4TH CROSS, AYYAPPA LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLAL, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560 037. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. HARSHITH C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHABALESHWAR CHITRIGEMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFYING THE ORDER UNDER ANNEXURE-A DTD.6.122019 PASSED BY THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE ON IA NO.IV AND V IN M.C.NO.33/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS DTD.27.10.2018 I.A.NO.IV AND V AS PRAYED FOR THE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 filed under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C.No.33/2018 dated 06.12.2019 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, both the husband and wife are before this Court. The husband has filed W.P.No.11125/2021 and the wife has filed W.P.No.7416/2020. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the wife had filed I.A.No.4 seeking interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per month to herself and to the minor daughters towards interim maintenance and also to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards expenses of proceedings, charges, travel etc., pending disposal of the petition. It is the case of the wife that the husband is having movable and immovable properties. He is a trustee of the school in which the children are studying. Through the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR immovable properties which he has given on rent, he is getting income of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- per month and he is maintaining the said transaction in Karnataka Bank and also in Federal Bank. The same was denied by the husband. 4. The Family Court had granted the maintenance of an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month i.e., Rs.20,000/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- each to the children. While granting the same, the Family Court observed that the wife had not produced any evidence to show the income of the husband in the present case and the husband has produced internet copy of the school where the minor children are studying, wherein the father of the respondent/wife is trustee and treasurer of the school. It is further observed that it is not the case of the wife that with the consent of the husband she had admitted in the said school. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of any evidence produced by the wife to show the income of the husband as on the date of the filing of the application, the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.20,000/- per month to the wife. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR 5. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the Family Court without any basis had granted the maintenance. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that he is having the income and he is in a position to pay the amount that is granted by the Family Court. It is further submitted that both the parties have filed their statement of assets and liabilities and the Family Court ought to have considered the same and passed the orders, but the order cannot be passed on assumptions and presumptions. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the husband is having two cars and also movable and immovable properties and he is leading a lavish life, he is in a position to pay the maintenance to the wife. In spite of the same, he is not taking care of the children and the wife had to take care of the two children and pay their expenses. It is further submitted that the Family Court had not granted a reasonable maintenance considering the financial status of the husband. It is submitted that the Family Court ought to have granted the maintenance as sought by the wife. It is further submitted that the Family Court had failed to consider and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR appreciate the social status of the husband. It is submitted that after the orders are passed, so far no amounts are paid by the husband. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. When the matter came up on the last occasion as the husband had not paid any amount to the wife towards maintenance, this Court had directed the husband that he has the responsibility to take care of the children. Today, he has brought the DD for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/-. The order that is passed by the Family Court is bereft of reasons. When the Court fixed the maintenance at an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month, the Family Court ought to have looked at the financial capacity of the husband basing on the evidence that is placed before the Family Court, but not on the submission of the learned counsel for the husband or based on the case of the wife. The Family Court repeatedly observed that there is no material before the Court to show the income of the husband. In spite of the same, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order needs to be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR set aside. In view of the same, this Court is passing the following,
Decision
ORDER i. The order impugned passed in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 in ii. iii. M.C.No.33/2018 dated 06.12.2019 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration. Both the parties are at liberty to adduce their evidence. The husband has drawn a DD bearing No.513626 dated: 10.06.2025 for an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., is handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the wife. iv. Parties shall appear before the Family Court on 01.07.2025 without further notice and the Family Court within a timeframe of 6 months shall dispose of the application. v. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20085 WP No. 11125 of 2021 C/W WP No. 7416 of 2020 HC-KAR vi. All I.As., in the writ petitions shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8