IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 27515 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI K.C.NIRANJANA MURTHY @

NIRANJANA MURTHY RANGADAMA S/O R.CHAKRAPANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NO.325, 75^TH CROSS HARINI NILAYA, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT Digitally signed by MEGHA BENGALURU -560 078 MOHAN Location: H IGH COURT OF …PETITIONER KARNATAKA (BY SRI. POORNIMA H.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT.KAVITHA S., W/O K.C.NIRANJANA MURTHY D/O GUNDAPPA SAJJAN AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.2271, 7^TH CROSS, 11^TH MAIN, CHANDRA NAGAR, YELACHENAHALLI KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BENGALURU -560 078 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.HARSHAVARDHAN, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24/06/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN M.C. NO. 6357/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.6357/2021 dated 24.06.2025 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the respondent/wife, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.

2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the husband was working earlier and now he has no job. Further, he has to take care of his father who is undergoing dialysis and he is spending an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month towards the treatment of the father. It is submitted that the child is staying with him and he has to take care of his child who is 11 years old and also has to take care of his mother and all these expenses will come around an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and he is only left with another amount of Rs.25,000/-. It is submitted that the wife is educated and able bodied woman and she can work and earn for herself. It is submitted that after taking care of all the needs of his parents, the child and the petitioner himself, it is difficult to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife. Hence, the maintenance granted by the Family Court may be reduced.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the apart from his job, the husband is having business and earning substantial amount. It is submitted that the father of the husband is an ex-service man and thereafter, he joined the Central Government and he is retired and receiving the pension. It is submitted that without placing any materials before the Family Court, the husband has stated that his expenditure is about Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The wife is not doing anything and whenever she takes up a job, the husband comes there and humiliate the wife and she could not continue the job. It is submitted that the income of the husband is not correctly stated before the Family Court and the wife has all the evidence to show that he has come before the Family Court with suppression of facts. It is submitted that the Family Court had rightly considered and granted the maintenance and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court.

5. In response to that, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the wife is also harassing the husband and because of the harassment, he lost his job.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. As per the income tax returns of the husband for the assessment year 2024-25, the gross income of the husband is an amount of Rs.16,16,694/-. According to the husband, he is spending an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month towards the dialysis of his father and he has not stated about the pension that is received by his father and no documents are filed in support of the ex