Smt Hemavathi M vs Sri Ravi Kumar P on 27 March, 2026

                            -1-
                                    WP No. 11177 of 2025



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                           BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
           WRIT PETITION NO. 11177 OF 2025
BETWEEN:

SMT HEMAVATHI M
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O MR.RAVI KUMAR.
D/O MAHADEVA.M

EARLIER RESIDING AT
NO. D-4, 98/2,
3RD CROSS, NATARAJA LAYOUT,
J.P.NAGAR 7TH BLOCK,
BENGALURU 560 078.

PRESENTLY AT
NO.152, VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
2ND STAGE,
NAGARABHAVI,
BENGALURU-560 072.
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NEHRU P.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI RAVI KUMAR P
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O PUTTASWAMY
R/A 'SAPTHAGIRI'
NO.5, 3RD FLOOR
OPP. SURESH PHARMA,
9TH 'J' MAIN, HOSAHALLI,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 040.
                                         ...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RAMA DEVI L.,ADVOCATE)
                                 -2-
                                          WP No. 11177 of 2025



      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 27.02.25 ON IA NO. 3, FURNISHED AT ANNX-A PASSED
BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU, IN M.C NO.6741/2022 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION
FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT AND DIRECT
THE RESPONDENT TO PAY A SUM OF RS.25,000/-P.M. (TWENTY FIVE
THOUSAND), TO THE PETITIONER AS INTERIM MAINTENANCE FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TO MEET HER BASIC NEEDS AND MEDICAL
EXPENSES AND A SUM OF RS.30,000/- AS LEGAL AND INCIDENTAL
EXPENSES FOR CONDUCTING THE CASE.


      THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 06.03.2026 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 under Articles   226 and 227 of

the Constitution of India, calling in question the legality and

correctness of the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the

learned VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, ('the

Family Court' for short) on I.A.No.III filed under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act of 1955' for short), in

M.C.No.6741/2022,     whereby    the   application   filed   by     the

petitioner-wife   seeking    maintenance     pendente        lite    of

Rs.25,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-

has been rejected.
                                   -3-
                                             WP No. 11177 of 2025



       2.     The    petitioner/respondent       herein   are    the

petitioner/respondent before the Family Court.


       3.     For convenience of reference, the parties herein are

referred to as per their rankings before the Family Court.


       4.     The facts of the case are that:-


       The petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded

wife   and    husband.    Their   marriage    was   solemnized   on

13.03.2022 at S.A.R. Convention Hall, Srigandhada Kaval,

Magadi Main Road, Bengaluru, in accordance with Hindu rites

and customs. After the marriage, the petitioner joined the

respondent at his residence at Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, and

commenced her matrimonial life in a joint family consisting of

the respondent, his parents and his younger brother.


       5.     It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent's

mother exercised predominant control over the household

affairs and that the respondent acted under her influence. The

petitioner was left alone for most part of the day and even the

respondent's interaction with her was subject to the approval of

his mother.
                               -4-
                                        WP No. 11177 of 2025



     6.    The marital life between the parties remained

cordial only for a brief period. Upon missing her menstrual

cycle, the petitioner was taken to Motherhood Hospital where

her pregnancy was confirmed. During the course of pregnancy,

she suffered from severe morning sickness and was unable to

attend to household chores, which led to ill-treatment and

disparaging remarks from the respondent's mother. It is further

alleged that the respondent subjected the petitioner to verbal

abuse and neglect.


     7.    Owing to her deteriorating physical and mental

condition, the petitioner was taken by her mother to her

parental home in the month of August 2022, approximately one

week prior to the Ganesha festival, for proper care and

nourishment, and she has been residing there since then.


     8.    During the 19th week of pregnancy, on medical

advice, the petitioner underwent an ultrasound scan         on

22.09.2022, which revealed fetal anomalies including mild

facial dysmorphism, clefts of the posterior palate or small

cardiac septal defects and Partial Agenesis of Corpus Callosum.

The doctors advised Medical Termination of Pregnancy. The
                                  -5-
                                           WP No. 11177 of 2025



said development was informed to the respondent by the

petitioner's mother, but the respondent remained indifferent.


      9.    Thereafter, the petitioner underwent MTP at K.C.

General Hospital on 05.10.2022 and was discharged on

07.10.2022. A male fetus weighing 340 grams was extracted.

Despite being informed, the respondent did not visit the

petitioner during hospitalization or thereafter. The petitioner

continued to stay at her parental home and was recovering.


      10.   A   legal   notice   dated   20.10.2022,   served   on

25.10.2022, was issued calling upon the respondent to resume

marital life by providing a separate residence. No reply was

forthcoming.


      11.   The petitioner thereafter filed M.C.No.6741/2022

before the Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking restitution of

conjugal rights. During the pendency of the said proceedings,

the petitioner filed I.A. No. III under Section 24 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, seeking maintenance pendente lite of Rs.25,000/-

per month and Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses.


      12.   The respondent appeared and filed objections to the

main petition and also adopted the same as objections to

I.A.No.III. Both parties filed affidavits of disclosure of assets
                                   -6-
                                               WP No. 11177 of 2025



and liabilities. The petitioner has no independent source of

income, whereas the respondent is working as an Analyst-CAT

Modelling at XL India Business Services Pvt. Ltd., earning

Rs.52,268/- per month.


      13.   The    learned     Family    Court,      by   order   dated

27.02.2025, dismissed I.A.No.III mainly on the ground that the

petitioner had lived in the matrimonial home only for a short

period.


      14.   Aggrieved by the said order passed on I.A. No. III,

the present writ petition is filed.


      15.   The    learned     counsel   for   the   petitioner   would

contend that the Family Court has rejected the application

solely on the ground of short duration of cohabitation, which is

wholly irrelevant for deciding an application under Section 24 of

the Hindu Marriage Act. Further, the petitioner resided in the

matrimonial home from 13.03.2022 till August 2022, and

thereafter she was compelled to stay at her parental home due

to pregnancy and serious medical complications. It is submitted

that the ultrasound scan dated 22.09.2022 revealed fetal

abnormalities,    and    the     petitioner    underwent     MTP    on
                                -7-
                                         WP No. 11177 of 2025



05.10.2022, which clearly establishes that her separation was

not voluntary.


      16.   It is also contended that the respondent failed to

visit the petitioner during her hospitalization and neglected his

matrimonial obligations. The petitioner is unemployed, has no

independent income and is entirely dependent on her parents,

whereas the respondent is gainfully employed and capable of

maintaining her.


      17.   Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

supports    the   impugned   order   passed   on   I.A.No.III   and

contended that the petitioner stayed in the matrimonial home

only for a short period and thereafter left the house without

sufficient cause. The petitioner did not discharge her household

responsibilities, used to wake up late and did not respect the

respondent or his parents. It is also contended that she was

insisting on a separate residence, which led to disputes. The

respondent submits that his parents are suffering from medical

ailments and are dependent on him, and therefore he has

financial constraints.


      18.   Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
                                       -8-
                                                   WP No. 11177 of 2025



      19.   At the outset, it is not in dispute that the marriage

between the parties was solemnized on 13.03.2022. Pursuant

thereto, the petitioner joined the respondent in the matrimonial

home and resided there till August 2022. It is not in dispute

that from August 2022 onwards, the petitioner has been

residing at her parental home. It is also not in dispute that

during the subsistence of the marriage, the petitioner had

conceived    and,     on    medical         advice,    underwent     Medical

Termination of Pregnancy on 05.10.2022.


      20.   The case of the petitioner is that she was subjected

to   ill-treatment    and      neglect      in   the   matrimonial   home,

particularly during the period of pregnancy, and owing to her

deteriorating physical condition, she was taken to her parental

home, where she has continued to reside. It is further

contended that the respondent failed to attend to her even

during her hospitalization. The petitioner asserts that she has

no independent source of income and is entirely dependent on

her parents, whereas the respondent is gainfully employed.


      21.   Per      contra,    the      respondent      has   denied   the

allegations and contends that the petitioner left the matrimonial

home without justifiable cause. It is his specific contention that
                                 -9-
                                          WP No. 11177 of 2025



the petitioner failed to discharge her matrimonial obligations,

insisted upon a separate residence and that he has financial

responsibilities towards his dependent parents.


      22.     Thus, while the factum of marriage, the period of

cohabitation till August 2022, the petitioner residing separately

thereafter, and the medical termination of pregnancy are

admitted, the circumstances leading to the petitioner living

separately, the conduct of the parties and the entitlement of

the petitioner to claim maintenance are seriously disputed

questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in a summary

manner at the interlocutory stage.


      23.     In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion

that the claim of the petitioner for maintenance pendente lite

requires consideration on the basis of materials to be placed by

both parties before the Family Court. The said aspects cannot

be conclusively determined in the absence of such material at

this stage.


      24.     Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, it is to

be noted that the Family Court has rejected the application filed

under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act primarily on the

ground that the parties had lived together only for a short
                                - 10 -
                                           WP No. 11177 of 2025



period. The duration of cohabitation, by itself, is not a

determinative factor while considering an application under

Section 24 of the Act. The Family Court is required to consider

the income of the parties, their respective financial capacities

and the requirement of the spouse seeking maintenance. In the

case on hand, the impugned order does not reflect due

consideration of these relevant factors. When an order is

founded on an irrelevant consideration and without proper

examination of relevant aspects, the same would warrant

interference even in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.


      25.   At this juncture, it becomes necessary to advert to

the law laid down the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and

another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein it was

observed as follows:-


         96. The view that maintenance ought to be granted
      from the date when the application was made, is based on
      the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws
      is to protect a deserted wife and dependent children from
      destitution and vagrancy. If maintenance is not paid from
      the date of application, the party seeking maintenance
      would be deprived of sustenance, owing to the time taken
      for disposal of the application, which often runs into
      several years.
                                    - 11 -
                                               WP No. 11177 of 2025



      26.     In view of the above, the Family Court shall

reconsider I.A.No.III afresh, strictly in accordance with law and

in the light of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in

Rajnesh v. Neha particularly with regard to consideration of

affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities, determination of

financial capacity, and other relevant parameters governing

grant of interim maintenance. Therefore, failure to consider the

application for interim maintenance in accordance with the said

decision renders the impugned order is not proper.


      27.     In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the

following:-


                                    ORDER
(i) This writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 27.02.2025 passed on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.6741/2022 by the Family Court is set aside.
(iii) The matter is remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration of I.A.No.III in accordance with law, after affording opportunity to both parties to place material in support of their respective contentions.
(iv) All contentions of the parties are kept open.
- 12 -
(v) The Family Court shall consider the application independently and pass appropriate orders, uninfluenced by any observations made herein, as expeditiously as possible.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
bnv