[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Venkatesh vs Maduri @Padmashree on 13 March, 2026
-1-
WP No. 19578 of 2025
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.19578 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
VENKATESH
S/O. NANASAHEBA DESHPANDE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.7/2, BALIKAI ONI,
NEAR NAGARESHWAR TEMPLE,
RAVIVAR PET, DHARWAD,
PINCODE-580 001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AKSHAY R. HUDDAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MADURI @PADMASHREE
W/O. VENKATESH DESHPANDE,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
2. VIJAYEENDRA
S/O. VENKATESH DESHPANDE
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
3. SUMEDHA
S/O. VENKATESH DESHPANDE
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 BEING MINORS
REP. BY RESPONDENT NO.1
IS NATURAL GUARDIAN,
ALL ARE RESIDING SAME ADDRESS
R/AT. NO.732, 9TH CROSS,
VIDYAMANYANAGAR,
ANDRAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560 091.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SONATAI VAKKUND.G., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN C.MISC.NO. 592/2014 FROM THE V ADDL. PRL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD.08.10.2024 GRANTING MAINTENANCE OF RS.75,000/-
DIRECTED TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 / PETITIONER
NOS. 2 AND 3 IN C.MISC.NO. 592/2014, PASSED BY THE LEARNED V
ADDL.PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BANGALORE AT ANNX-A.
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 petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved
by the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the V Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in
C.Misc.No.592/2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'Family
Court') whereby the trial court has directed the petitioner
to pay interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- each to
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
2. The petitioner/husband married the respondent
No.1/wife on 24.05.2005 at Vanavasi Ram Mandira,
Dharwad. After the marriage, the petitioner and
respondent lived together as husband and wife.
Subsequently, the respondent alleged that the petitioner
had subjected her to harassment and assault. On the
basis of the said allegations, the respondent filed a petition
seeking maintenance in C.Misc.No.592/2014 before the V
Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.
3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the Family court, by order dated 08.10.2024
in C.Misc.No.592/2014, partly allowed the petition and
directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.75,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent
No.1 is the wife and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the minor
sons of the petitioner aged about 16 and 14 years
respectively, who are pursuing their education. The
petitioner is residing at Dharwad, whereas the respondents
are residing at Bengaluru. The petitioner had filed
M.C.No.47/2014 before the Principal Judge, Family Court,
Dharwad seeking restitution of conjugal rights against
respondent No.1. The said petition came to be allowed by
order dated 23.11.2017, directing respondent No.1 to join
the petitioner within one month from the date of order and
resume marital life. The review petition filed by
respondent No.1 was also dismissed and the said decree of
restitution of conjugal rights has not been set aside till
date.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that respondent No.1 has not complied with the decree for
restitution of conjugal rights and that she is doing
freelancing work. The petitioner has admitted that he has
not paid any maintenance to respondent Nos.2 and 3 from
the year 2014 till date. That considerable expenditure has
been incurred towards the education and maintenance of
the minor children, including expenses towards school
fees, medicines and nutritious food. However, the Family
Court observed that the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- includes
the personal expenses of respondent No.1 and that the
said amount is not exclusively for the maintenance of
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
respondent No.1 had earlier filed a petition seeking review
of the decree in Misc.No.93/2016 before the Family Court,
Dharwad, and the said petition came to be dismissed on
merits by order dated 27.06.2017.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel for
respondents that the respondent/wife is not illiterate and
she has completed her M.A. degree. It is contended that
her parents were employed in Government service and
that her father is receiving a substantial pension, while her
mother who is no more, was also drawing pension during
her lifetime. It is further contended that the
respondent's parents own a residential house in a posh
locality in Bengaluru, which is valued in crores. It is
submitted that the respondent is residing in Bengaluru
voluntarily and on her own accord.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner is
presently unemployed for nearly two years. It is submitted
that he has insufficient income to meet his day-to-day
expenses and to support his aged mother. It is contended
that the respondent has voluntarily deserted the
matrimonial home and residing separately in Bengaluru,
and therefore, respondent No.1 is not entitled to claim
maintenance.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents and perused the material on record.
9. It is observed from the ordersheet of this Court
that initially, RPFC was filed by the petitioner. Office has
raised an objection that against an order of the Family
Court, Writ Petition lies under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the order passed by the Uttar Pradesh High
Court in case of Pawan Kumar vs. State of UP and
another reported in 2024:AHC:166066, as against the
order passed by the Family Court, a writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has to be filed.
On 23.06.2025, this Court sustained the office objections
and permitted to convert RPFC into Writ Petition.
10. It is observed that on perusal of the entire
cross-examination at RW.1, it can be inferred that since
2014 till today, respondent/husband has not paid any
amount towards maintenance of his children. Respondent
is capable of earning and it is the moral obligation of
father to maintain his children. As the petitioner/wife is
earning, she is not entitled for maintenance. Further,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed on
I.A.No.8 dated 28.12.2023 by the V Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in C.Misc.No.592/2014,
granting interim maintenance of Rs.75,000/- each to
Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
11. Accordingly, Writ Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the order passed on I.A.No.8 dated
28.12.2023 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bengaluru in C.Misc.No.592/2014 is hereby
confirmed.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
bnv
