Karnataka High Court

Sri Abhishek Kumar vs Smt. Arati Kumari on 3 June, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:18610
                                                      WP No. 15979 of 2024


                   HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                            BEFORE

                      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 15979 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

                   BETWEEN:

                      SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR
                      S/O MURARI PRASAD
                      AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                      FLAT NO.202, SV NILAYAM
                      4TH CROSS, BABUSAPALYA
                      BENGALURU-560 043
                                                              ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA B, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                      SMT. ARATI KUMARI
                      D/O RAVINDRA KUAMR SINHA
                      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
Digitally signed
by MEGHA              R/AT TALAB KE PAS
MOHAN                 CHOTAKI SARIMPUR
Location:             KALI STHAM KE PAS
HIGH COURT            BUXAR, BIHAR-802 101.
OF                                                          ...RESPONDENT
KARNATAKA
                   (BY SRI. RAVEENDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R)

                        THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
                   CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 28(2) OF THE HINDU
                   MARRIAGE ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD
                   12.06.2023 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY
                   COURT BENGALURU IN MC 1331/2021 ON IA NO. III FILED
                   UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT BY THE
                   RESPONDENT AS PER ANNX-J AND ETC.
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:18610
                                          WP No. 15979 of 2024


HC-KAR



    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

                         ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner-

husband, being aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.III in

M.C.No.1331/2021 dated 12.06.2023 by the VI Additional

Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family

Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- to

the wife from the date of filing of I.A.No.III, i.e., on

23.12.2021, and one-time litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner/husband submits that the respondent/wife is

gainfully employed, working as a teacher and earning an

amount of Rs.18,000/- per month. It is submitted that the bank

statement filed by him before the Court clearly shows that she

is gainfully employed. Another fact is that the petitioner lost his

job in the month of April, rejoined in the month of January and

he did not have the means to take care of himself, that

particular aspect was not considered by the Family Court.

Further, it is submitted that the wife deserted the husband, on

NC: 2025:KHC:18610

HC-KAR

the ground of desertion, he has filed the MC seeking divorce.

He further submits that the wife filed a counterclaim seeking a

decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty. When the wife has

deserted the husband, she is not entitled for maintenance.

3. Learned counsel relied on the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court in MFA.No.5732/2015 C/w

RPFC.No.125/2025 dated 10.03.2023 between

SMT.SHUBHA and SRI. H. SATISH and submits that in the

light of the said judgment, the wife has deserted the husband

and she is not entitled for any maintenance. Further, he

submits that the salary of the husband is an amount of

Rs.70,000/- and the Court had granted maintenance of an

amount of Rs.20,000/- per month, which is on the higher side.

He further submits that the Court, without considering all these

aspects, passed an impugned order, which needs to be set

aside.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife

submits that the Bank Statement discloses that in the months

of April, May and June, an amount of Rs.18,000/- was remitted

to the account of the respondent/wife. It is also stated in the

written argument that in a particular school, the teacher, who

NC: 2025:KHC:18610

HC-KAR

is on leave, have taken her service without any appointment for

the brief period of three months that she worked. It is

submitted that at the time of marriage, there was a

pre-condition that she should stop work, as such, she stopped

working. Learned counsel further submits that the ground of

desertion and all other aspects have to be decided by the Court

during the course of the trial. At this stage, there cannot be a

finding with regard to desertion, as the wife is not able to

maintain herself and the husband has sufficient earning

income. Hence, the wife is entitled for maintenance.

5. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and

perused the materials on record.

6. According to the wife, she is unemployed and the

husband is working. The husband denied this fact, however, he

has placed before the Court evidence showing that between

April 2022 and December 2022, he was removed from service

and was not working. The grounds raised by the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband are:

The first ground is with regard to desertion and she is not

entitled for the maintenance, the second ground is that she is

NC: 2025:KHC:18610

HC-KAR

gainfully employed and the third ground is that he was not

working from April 2022 to December 2022 which was not

considered by the Family Court.

7. Coming to the first ground with regard to the

desertion in the judgment relied on by the learned counsel, the

said judgment does not relate to the facts and circumstances of

the case. In the judgment referred supra, there was a finding

by the Court with regard to desertion, basing on that the Court

has given a finding that she is not entitled for maintenance,

and that stage has not come in this case. The Family Court has

yet to decide with regard to the desertion as pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court cannot appreciate

the evidence, at this stage, whether there is desertion or not.

8. Coming to the second ground i.e., raised with

regard to her gainful employment, the petition was filed in the

year 2021, according to the husband, the wife is working even

from that day and she is gainful employed but the material that

placed on record which relying is about the salaries in the

months of April, May and June, 2022 and how that amounts are

credited into the account of wife. The arguments that are put

forth by the learned counsel for the respondent and the written

NC: 2025:KHC:18610

HC-KAR

arguments that are placed before the Family Court are

convincing and basing on that this Court cannot come to a

conclusion that she is gainfully employed as on the date of the

petition and as on the date of passing of the order. In that

case, when the husband is employed and according to the

counsel, he is earning an amount of Rs.70,000/- is admitted.

The maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- per month granted by

the Family Court cannot be interfered.

9. Coming to the third ground, i.e., raised with regard

to the husband had lost his job, he was not earning between

April to December 2022 and was unemployed. Considering the

fact that he was out of a job between April 2022 and December

2022 and the fact that the wife had income in the months of

April, May, and June, 2022, this Court is of the view that the

husband need not to pay maintenance to the wife between April

and December 2022 as ordered by the Family Court. As far as

the maintenance amount of Rs.20,000/- and one time litigation

expenses are concerned, is confirmed. Accordingly, this Court is

passing the following:

NC: 2025:KHC:18610

HC-KAR

ORDER

i) The impugned order dated 12.06.2023 passed on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.1331/2021 by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is hereby modified to the extent that between April to December, 2022, the wife is not entitled for maintenance and in all other respect the order of the Family Court is affirmed.