Writ Petition No. 14452 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:20588 WP No. 14452 of 2025 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 14452 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: KUMARI ABHA SINHA, W/O DEEPAK KUMAR SINHA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.401, B-BLOCK, SATWI'S VIELLE, KALKERE MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU, BENGALURU – 560 043. (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ N ARALI, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SINHA, S/O LATE YUGESHWAR PRASAD SINHA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O A-7-303, PROVIDENT HARMONY, CHOKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, RK HEGDE NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 064. …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT
Legal Reasoning
(SRI.DEEPAK KUMAR SINHA – PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE - A ORDER DATED 14.02.2025 PASSED BY HONBLE VI-ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT BENGALURU IN MC NO. 3994/2017 REJECTING AS INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20588 WP No. 14452 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.11 in M.C. No.3994/2017 dated 14.02.2025 by the Court of VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite is dismissed by the Court, the wife is before this Court. 2. Parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. Earlier the wife had filed I.A. No.4 under Sections 24 and 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance for herself and the child and on 14.11.2018, the Family Court had granted the maintenance to the child at Rs.20,000/- and the application as far as the wife is concerned, is dismissed and the Family Court observed that in the light of the earlier order passed on the maintenance pendante lite, once again the wife has come up with the same relief. Therefore, that cannot be considered. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20588 WP No. 14452 of 2025 HC-KAR 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and Another1 submits that in the changed circumstances, the party can always come up with the application and the Court has got the power to pass orders enhancing the maintenance considering the fact and circumstances of the case. It is not that the Court cannot consider the said application. He submits that the changed circumstances are she is not able to maintain herself as she lost the job and she could not secure the job. 5. Party-in-person/husband submits that as per the order passed by the Court with regard to the maintenance at Rs.20,000/-, he has paid up-to-date and in the grounds, it is stated that the husband is not paying, which is an incorrect submission. It is submitted that when once the Court had dismissed the application considering the educational qualification and 23 years of service she put in and the fact that she lost the job now there are no changed circumstances. The 1 (2021)2 SCC 324 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20588 WP No. 14452 of 2025 HC-KAR Court had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and party-in-peron/respondent, perused the material on record. Before going into the merits of the matter, it is appropriate to look at the application i.e., I.A.No.11 filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the application filed, it is stated that the Court by order dated 14.11.2018 had allowed only one time litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/-. Within a short time after the husband has filed the case in the year 2017, she had lost the job due to stress and mental agony. Since she is unable to deliver work properly and was compelled to resign under the pressure of the company, a copy of the resignation is produced and as she could not seek any other employment due to household responsibilities and also she has to take care of her minor son whose custody is with her. Therefore, she has no specific source of income to meet the living expenses and that of the minor son. Hence, she has come up with this application. It is also stated that she has filed a maintenance petition in Gaya under Section 121 of Cr.P.C. However, it is likely to take - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20588 WP No. 14452 of 2025 HC-KAR long time before any order is passed and she is staying at Bangalore and cannot pursue the matter at Gaya. It is stated that the husband is earning Rs.10,00,000/- p.m. and he has to take care of the expenses. It is appropriate to look at the earlier order passed by the Family Court wherein the Court had dismissed the IA No.4 filed by the wife. In the said IA, the Court records the finding with regard to the fact that the wife is not working. The Family Court observed that both the parties are earning members, qualified persons and capable of earning and maintaining themselves. As admitted by both the parties in the present application the wife is not entitled for the maintenance only on the ground that the wife is having properties in her name and also having her own income that itself will not give right to the wife to claim maintenance from the husband when she is capable of earning and maintaining herself. Accordingly, the Family Court had dismissed the application as far as wife is concerned and as far as the son is concerned, the Court had granted Rs.20,000/-. It is the case of the husband that he is earning an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh's case - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20588 WP No. 14452 of 2025 HC-KAR supra wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in the changed circumstances, successive applications can be filed and the Court can appreciate the same. Here, as per the application, the changed circumstances are that she lost the job. But as on the date the earlier order was passed, even on that date also she is not having a job, that was recorded by the Court. In such scenario, the remedy that is available to the party was to question the said order. They kept quiet without questioning the said order. Now this Court do not find any changed circumstances from the date of earlier order and all the aspects were rightly dealt with by the Family Court in the earlier order. The Family Court was right in holding that already when there is an order passed, this application cannot be considered and this cannot be termed as changed circumstances and the Court has taken note of the capability of the parties to earn than whether she is earning on the day or not. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of the Family Court do not seek any interference. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20588 WP No. 14452 of 2025 HC-KAR
Decision
ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) All IAs., in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA