##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6531

WP No. 2497 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

WRIT PETITION NO.2497 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.G.J.MANOHAR,

S/O LATE JAGADEESHA,

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NEW IB BACK SIDE,

MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, GUBBI TOWN,

TUMKURU-572103.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR

SMT.MANJULA D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

by SOWMYA

DODDAMARAIAH

Location: HIGH

COURT OF SMT.SWETHA S.,

KARNATAKA

D/O. LATE SHIVAGANGAIAH,

W/O. MANOHARA,

AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

R/A MANIFEST FORTUNE APARTMENT,

'A' BLOCK S3, 8TH A CROSS,

THIMMAKKA LAYAOUT

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6531

WP No. 2497 of 2025

HC-KAR

CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,

R.T. NAGAR POST,

BANGALORE-560032

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. PRABHULINGA MURTHY B. R., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE

IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 23.01.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.

498/2021 IN RESPECT OF I.A.NO.2 PASSED BY THE V ADDL

PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND MODIFY THE

MAINTENANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10,0000/- TO RS.3000/- TO

THE RESPONDENT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT

ANNX-D.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6531

WP No. 2497 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Pavan Kumar who represents Smt.Manjula D.,

learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri.

Prabhulinga Murthy B.R., learned counsel on record for the

respondent.

2. Husband who was directed to pay his wife a

sum of ₹10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance

by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bengaluru, through orders on I.A.No.II in Criminal

Miscellaneous Case No.498/2021 dated 23.01.2023 filed

the present writ petition. He seeks to quash the impugned

order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner looked after the respondent well. Both are

graduates. Father of the petitioner met with an accident

recently and is bed ridden. The petitioner is taking care of

his father. Petitioner got a job recently and he is earning

around ₹10,500/- per month. The tribunal directed the

petitioner to pay exorbitant sum of ₹10,000/- as

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6531

WP No. 2497 of 2025

HC-KAR

maintenance which he cannot pay and therefore this writ

petition is filed. Learned counsel also states that indeed

respondent left the matrimonial home without any

justifiable reason and thus she is not entitled for any

maintenance.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the

respondent submits that petitioner has got huge property

and is doing business. Therefore, he can pay a sum of

₹10,000/- as ordered by the tribunal towards maintenance

of the respondent.

5. As per the version of the respondent, petitioner

earns more than ₹1,00,000/- per month by running a

super market by name 'Sumukha Super Market', which is

located at Gubbi Town. The contention of the petitioner is

that he closed the said business due to loss. Family Court

taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner

obtained loan of ₹4,20,000/- from his credit card,

₹1,25,000/- gold loan, ₹1,00,000 as O.D. from Union

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6531

WP No. 2497 of 2025

HC-KAR

Bank and holding that when he is capable to pay more

than ₹25,000/- E.M.I., he is also capable to pay

maintenance to his wife, directed him to pay a sum of

₹10,000/- towards maintenance per month. The Court also

observed that though the petitioner has disclosed that he

closed his business, the tax invoice dated 12.11.2022

reveals that the business continues. There is no material

on record to show that the respondent has got her own

source of earnings. Equally, there is no convincing

material with regard to the earnings of the petitioner.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that the sum awarded

towards interim maintenance i.e. ₹10,000/- is required to

be reduced to ₹8,000/- per month. As the petitioner

herein failed to establish that respondent has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document