[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. H. N. Naresh Kumar vs Smt. Jyothi Lakshmi. M on 8 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19260
WP No. 25668 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.25668 OF 2023 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. H. N. NARESH KUMAR
S/O LATE H. B. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, HANUMANTHEGOWDA PALYA,
YENTAGANAHALLI POST,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-562 123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R
TENIHALLI SMT. JYOTHI LAKSHMI. M.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF W/O H. N. NARESH KUMAR,
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2, HANUMANTHEGOWDA PALYA,
YENTAGANAHALLI POST,
NELAMANGALA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
BANGALORE-562 123.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI M. N. RAGHU, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19260
WP No. 25668 of 2023
HC-KAR
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-A DATED 21/07/2023,
IN I.A.NO.3 BY ALLOWED BY THE 1ST ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT IN M.C.NO.4933/2021 BY AWARDING MONTHLY
INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.15,000/- TO RESPONDENT AND
HIS MINOR DAUGHTER OF RS.5,000/- AND ALSO FURTHER
GRANTING ONE TIME LITIGATION EXPENSES OF RS.25,000/-
B) TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AND DEEMS FIT UNDER
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE BY ALLOWING THE
WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
Seeking a writ of certiorari and to quash the order
that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in
M.C.No.4933/2021 dated 21.07.2023, this writ petition is
filed.
2. The relationship between the parties is not in
dispute. Hence writ petitioner will hereinafter be referred
to as 'husband' and the respondent 'wife'. The matter was
heard on petitioner's side on 18.02.2006. Despite granting
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:19260
WP No. 25668 of 2023
HC-KAR
sufficient time and opportunities, the respondent did not
submit her contentions.
3. As per the material available on record,
husband filed a petition against the wife seeking a decree
of dissolution of marriage. Wife filed an interlocutory
application vide I.A.No.III seeking the Court to direct her
husband to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation
expenses and interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per
month for her travel, medical, clothing and other personal
expenses.
4. Family Court through the impugned order
directed the husband to pay wife a sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month and to daughter a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month
towards interim maintenance. Further the Court directed
the husband to pay wife a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards one
time litigation expenses.
5. Sri Chokkareddy, learned counsel who
represented the husband contended that due to arrogance
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:19260
WP No. 25668 of 2023
HC-KAR
of the wife dispute arose between the spouses. Wife did
not give minimum respect to her mother-in-law. His client
worked as Senior Marketing Executive Officer at
Raghavendra Hospital, Bengaluru from 2000 to 2007.
Thereafter he worked as Billing in Charge at Suguna
Hospital, Bengaluru. Later he joined Harsha Hospital,
Nelamangala Town. While he was working there, wife
used to call the staff of the hospital and used to verify
about the presence of her husband there. Due to
harassment of his wife he stopped working anywhere.
Wife and husband are residing in the same house along
with their daughter. His client is taking care of all the
necessities of the daughter including her education. He is
also providing basic necessities to his wife. Learned
counsel states that though wife did not claim any amount
whatsoever towards maintenance of the daughter, Family
Court directed his client to pay his daughter a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month. Learned counsel also submitted
that as of now he is not working anywhere. Learned
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:19260
WP No. 25668 of 2023
HC-KAR
counsel therefore seeks to allow the writ petition and
quash the impugned order as prayed for.
6. There is no discussion in the impugned order
with regard to earnings of the husband and his financial
capacity. Wife in the affidavit filed by her in support of her
application claiming interim maintenance made a clear
mention that she is residing in the same residence along
with her husband. Her version is that except food nothing
is being provided by her husband. Nowhere she
mentioned that the child was not taken care of by her
husband. Husband did not produce any material
whatsoever to show that he is taking care of medical and
other basic necessities of his wife. Therefore considering
totality of the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
view that the Family Court erred in awarding maintenance
to the daughter where such claim is not made at all by
anyone and also awarding huge sum of Rs.15,000/- per
month towards interim maintenance of the wife. This
Court is of the view that as the wife is residing with the
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:19260
WP No. 25668 of 2023
HC-KAR
husband in the same house and husband is looking after
food and shelter of the wife, for other basic necessities,
husband can only be directed to pay wife a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month towards interim maintenance.
Therefore the writ petition is disposed of with the
following:
ORDER
i. The order that is rendered by the Court of I
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.4933/2021
dated 21.07.2023 is modified in toto.
ii. Petitioner/husband is directed to pay
respondent/wife a sum of Rs.5,000/- per
month towards interim maintenance from the
date of petition filed for grant of such a relief
until further orders by the Family Court.
NC: 2026:KHC:19260
HC-KAR
iii. Petitioner/husband shall also pay the
litigation expenses to the extent as ordered
by the Family Court.
iv. All arrears to be cleared within three months.
v. It is made clear that this order does not
prevent wife to claim maintenance for her
daughter by filing a separate application to
that effect in case such necessity arises.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1
CT:SI
