IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15980 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI VINAY KUMAR V.N., S/O V. G.NARAYANASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS NO. 849/1, WARD NO.4, NEAR POLICE KAVAYATH FIELD, DINNEHOSAHALLI ROAD, PRASHANTHNAGARA, CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN AND DISTRICT-562 101 TEMPORARY ADDRESS NO. 39/2, SRI. LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, 7^TH CROSS, 6^TH STAGE, SAMYUKTHA LAYOUT, J.P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MARUTHI G.B., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by MEGHA MOHAN

1. SMT.PADMA G.P., Location: HIGH COURT OF W/O VINAY KUMAR V.N, KARNATAKA D/O PATALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 2. BABY SHIRJA V., D/O VINAY KUMAR V.N, AGED ABOUT 1 YEAR AND 7 MONTHS, SINCE 2^ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER, THE 1 RESPONDENT HEREIN.

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT GONTHIGANAHUDYA VILLAGE, PERESANDRA POST, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT-562 101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 IS MINOR)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRL. MISC. 32/2025, ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKABALLAPURA.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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.1 in Crl.Misc.No.32/2025 dated 25.04.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapura, whereby the Family Court had granted interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife and child, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.

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

3. I.A.No.1 is filed by the wife under Section 144(1)(a)

and (b) of Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking interim maintenance of an amount Rs.36,000/- per month to the wife and her minor daughter. It is the case of the wife that the husband is working and earning an amount of Rs.65,000/- per month. According to the husband, he has his own expenses and the wife is having agricultural property and she is having income, as such, she is not entitled for maintenance.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband has reiterated the very same grounds raised before the Family Court and submits that the maintenance that is awarded by the Family Court is on the higher side.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that when the wife is seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.36,000/- per month, the Family Court had granted only an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month and that also is questioned by the husband. It is submitted that he has a responsibility to take care of the wife and daughter and no interference is called for.

6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The admitted facts are that the husband is getting salary of an amount of Rs.34,000/-

per month and the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month. The contention of the husband that he has other expenses cannot be a ground for the Family Court not to grant maintenance to the wife and the daughter. It is the obligation of the husband to take care of the wife and the child. Further, the wife is having agricultural properties also is not a ground for the Family Court not to grant maintenance to the wife and nothing is forthcoming to show that she is getting the income. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court.

Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

SD/-

(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)

JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7