IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9120 OF 2025 (FC)

BETWEEN:

DR. NAGESHA SHIVANNA, MALE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE MR. SHIVANNA. M., R/O NO. G-01, BLOCK OLIVE, SANKALP CENTRAL PARK, JAWA MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU - 570 020.

MOBILE: 98867 55320 E-MAIL: NAGESHASHIVANNA@GMAIL.COM …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRIPAD S., ADVOCATE)

D igitally Signed by AND:

REKHA R Location :

DR. RATI KUNTE, High Court FEMALE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, of Karnataka W/O DR. NAGESHA SHIVANNA, R/O NO. G-01, BLOCK OLIVE, SANKALP CENTRAL PARK, JAWA MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU - 570 020.

MOBILE: 78297 13031 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MAHADEVA DESHAK AND SRI. MOHAMMAD ZABIULLA KHAN, ADVOCATES)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT 1984, READ WITH SECTION 28 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955, PRAYING TO STAY THE OPERATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DT. 09.09.2025 IN MC.NO. 61/2025 AND STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND COERCIVE STEPS IN EX.PETITION NO. 93/20205, INCLUDING ISSUANCE OF WARRANTS, ATTACHMENT ORDERS OR ANY OTHER MEASURES U/S 28-A OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. There is an office objection regarding maintainability of this appeal, as it is stated to be against an interlocutory order passed by the Family Court.

3. The matter relates to proceedings for divorce, in which an application I.A.Nos.2 and 4, were filed by the petitioner/respondent-wife for paying interim maintenance and educational expenses of minor children. An amount of Rs.75,000/- per month has been directed to be paid towards that effect, in addition to a sum of Rs.20,000/- to be paid towards interim litigation expenses as a one time payment.

4. It is evident that the order impugned is interlocutory in nature, being passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, given the provision of Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the instant appeal is not maintainable, being against the interlocutory order. The appeal is therefore, dismissed Sd/-

(JAYANT BANERJI)

JUDGE Sd/-

(T.M.NADAF)

JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 ct-vn