[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Chethan K S vs Smt Pallavi P @ Manchamma on 13 March, 2026
-1-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.10025 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI CHETHAN K.S
S/O SATHYA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT KARIGIRIGOWDANAKOPPALU,
VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
PIN - 571 428.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. PALLAVI P @ MANCHAMMA
W/O CHETHAN K.S
D/O PUTTASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAKOTHAGERE VILLAGE,
BASARALU HOBLI,
MANDYA TALUK,
PIN - 571428.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MS. ARCHANA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 04/10/2023 PASSED ON IA NO.1 FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT
IN MC NO.55/2022 BY THE LEARNED PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND C.J.M., AT MANDYA AT ANNEXURE-E.
-2-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-husband under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the
order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil
Judge & CJM, Mandya ('the Family Court' for short) on I.A.No.1
in the matrimonial proceedings, whereby the FamilyCourt
allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife under
Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955'
for short) and directed the petitioner to pay interim
maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to the respondent during
the pendency of the case.
2. The petitioner is the husband/respondent is wife
before this Court.
3. IA No.1 is filed by the wife-respondent on
09.09.2022 under section 24 of the Act of 1955 seeking interim
maintenance of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per month.
-3-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
4. The facts leading to the filing of present petition are
that:-
The marriage between the petitioner-husband and the
respondent-wife was solemnized on 19.03.2017 at Sri
Mahadeshwara Kalyana Mantapa, Doddahosagavi Village,
Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk, in the presence of elders, relatives
and well-wishers as per Hindu customs and rituals.
Subsequently, the petitioner instituted a petition under Section
13(1)(i)(ia)(ib) of the Act of 1955 seeking dissolution of
marriage against the respondent.
5. After service of notice, the respondent entered
appearance and filed objections denying the allegations made
in the petition. During the pendency of the said proceedings,
the respondent filed I.A.No.1 under Section 24 of the Act of
1955 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month
and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-, contending that she had
been driven out of the matrimonial home, that she had no
independent source of income, and that she was taking care of
their daughter born from the wedlock.
6. In the affidavit filed in support of the application,
the respondent asserted that she is not well educated and has
no employment, and that she requires financial assistance for
-4-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
the upbringing and education of her daughter. In the affidavit
of assets and liabilities filed by the respondent-wife, she alleged
that the petitioner is engaged in fishing and earning about
Rs.50,000/- per month, apart from earning Rs.5 to 8 lakhs per
annum from agricultural lands in his village by cultivating
sugarcane and paddy crops.
7. The petitioner-husband filed objections contending,
inter alia, that the respondent-wife had voluntarily left the
matrimonial home and had contracted a second marriage with
Lohith S/o Yogananda. He also relied upon a missing complaint
registered on 26.02.2022 at Koppa Police Station in Crime
No.11/2022. However, the petitioner failed to file the affidavit
of assets and liabilities as directed by the Family Court on
26.08.2023.
8. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials on record.
9. Upon consideration of the pleadings and material on
record, the Family Court observed that the marriage between
the parties on 19.03.2017 and their present separate residence
were not in dispute. It was also not disputed that the
respondent was taking care of their daughter Meghana, aged
about 6 years, and that the respondent had no independent
-5-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
source of income. With regard to the petitioner's allegation that
the respondent had contracted a second marriage with Lohith
S/o Yogananda, the Family Court noted that the said allegation
was not pleaded in the main petition and that the petitioner had
not disclosed the date of such alleged marriage.
10. The Family Court observed that the petitioner had
merely stated that he was informed about the alleged marriage
by Boramma and Saraswathi, and that the documents produced
relating to the missing complaint dated 26.02.2022 only
indicated that the respondent had left the matrimonial home
due to disputes and had later appeared before the police along
with her brother Sunilkumar and given a statement stating that
she had gone to the house of Parvathamma at Kumbalagudu
due to frustration. In the absence of any material to
substantiate the allegation of second marriage, the Family
Court had rightly held that the said contention could not be
considered at that stage.
11. The Family Court further noted that although the
respondent had alleged that the petitioner was earning
Rs.50,000/- per month from fishing business and Rs.5 to 8
lakhs annually from agricultural activities, she had not
produced documentary evidence in that regard. However,
-6-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
despite the direction issued on 26.08.2023 to file an affidavit
declaring his assets and liabilities, the petitioner failed to
comply with the said direction and also did not specifically deny
the income attributed to him by the respondent. Taking into
consideration that the respondent had no independent source
of income, that she was maintaining their minor daughter aged
about 6 years, and that she required financial support even for
basic maintenance and residence, the Family Court held that it
was just and proper to grant interim maintenance and
accordingly directed the petitioner to pay Rs.7,500/- per month
to the respondent.
12. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties.
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds no
illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting
interference. The object of Section 24 of the Act of 1955 is to
provide immediate financial assistance to a spouse who has no
sufficient independent income for support during the pendency
of matrimonial proceedings.
14. In the present case, the Family Court has rightly
recorded a finding that the respondent has no independent
-7-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
source of income and that she is maintaining the minor
daughter. The petitioner, despite being directed by the Court on
26.08.2023, failed to file the affidavit of assets and liabilities
and has not placed any convincing material to disprove the
respondent's claim regarding his earning capacity.
15. The contention of the petitioner that the respondent
has contracted a second marriage with Lohith S/o Yogananda is
a disputed question of fact for which no material has been
produced. The Family Court has rightly observed that such
allegation was neither pleaded in the petition nor supported by
any evidence indicating the date or circumstances of such
alleged marriage. In writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot
undertake a detailed factual inquiry into such disputed
questions, particularly in proceedings relating to interim
maintenance.
16. It is also pertinent to note that a sum of Rs.7,500/-
per month awarded by the Family Court is modest and cannot
be said to be excessive, especially considering the maintenance
of the respondent and the minor child. The Family Court has
exercised its discretion judiciously after considering the facts
and circumstances of the case and the material placed on
record.
-8-
WP No. 10025 of 2024
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
04.10.2023 passed by the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge &
CJM, Mandya allowing I.A.No.1 under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and directing payment of Rs.7,500/- per
month as interim maintenance does not suffer from any
illegality, perversity warranting interference.
18. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:-
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The interim maintenance as directed by the Family
Court shall continue to be paid by the petitioner during the
pendency of the matrimonial proceedings.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
bnv
