##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5609

WP No. 19418 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 19418 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI.MADHUSUDAN PUJARI

S/O LATE BOGRA POOJARI

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/AT BALLEMANE, HEBRI TALUK,

HEBRI HOBLI,

UDUPI - 576 112

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT.UMERA KHAN, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. HEGDE VEENA SRIKANT, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by SUVARNA T

Location:

HIGH COURT

OF SMT.VEENA

KARNATAKA

W/O MADHUSUDAN POOJARI,

D/O JANARDHANA SUVARNA

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

R/AT NO 454/1,

10TH MAIN ROAD,

7^TH CROSS,

NEAR GOOD YEAR SCHOOL,

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5609

WP No. 19418 of 2024

HC-KAR

HENNUR MARUTHI LAYOUT,

KALYANANAGAR POST

BENGALURU – 560 043

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE

IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE A DATED 19-02-2024

PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL 4TH ADDL. FAMILY

JUDGE COURT, AT BANGALORE ON IA NO.5 U/S 24 OF

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT IN M.C.4602/2022 BY SETTING

ASIDE THE ORDER GRANTING MAINTENANCE OF

RS.12,000/- PER MONTH.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE

THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5609

WP No. 19418 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.5 in

M.C.No.4602/2022 dated 19.02.2024 by the IV Addl. Principal

Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the husband is before this

Court.

2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for

the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case that the husband had filed

M.C.No.4602/2022 seeking divorce. In that, IA.No.5 is filed by

the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking

interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month to

her and to her son and also litigation expenses of an amount of

Rs.30,000/-. The marriage between the parties had taken place

on 31.12.1997. The wife had filed M.C.No.1097/2018 seeking

restitution of conjugal rights and the same came to be decreed

on 18.01.2023, but the husband had not joined the wife and he

had filed a petition seeking divorce. It is the case of the wife

that she is not in a position to maintain herself. The husband is

working and is having enough resources, in spite of that he has

failed to maintain the wife. The Family Court had considered

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5609

WP No. 19418 of 2024

HC-KAR

the bank statement and also the fact that there is a regular

inflow of money of an amount of Rs.25,000/- from SRNOME

Pvt. Ltd. every month and there is an amount of Rs.61,600/-

transferred from one Sachin Kumar and the husband has not

produced any details with regard to these transactions. The

Family Court had observed that there is constant transfer of

fund of an amount of Rs.25,500/- every month and that has to

be taken as income of the husband. His bank balance in Canara

Bank till August 2023 was Rs.2,03,606.95/-. If it is only

agricultural income of Rs.5,000/- after spending for the medical

expenses and other expenses of his dependent mother, this

amount of deposit which every month the husband receives is

not explained. It is stated that he has sold the property, but he

has not produced any document, hence an adverse inference

has to be drawn with regard to the income of the husband. The

husband had stated that the wife is running a fancy store, but

no document is produced in that regard. The Family Court had

observed that the wife had stated that she was doing tailoring

work in the ground floor of the cloth shop of the husband

earlier. The Family Court had also observed that she can

continue the same profession through which she was deriving

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5609

WP No. 19418 of 2024

HC-KAR

income, but she cannot remain idle merely for the reason that

her husband had not taken her back in spite of the decree. The

Family Court had further observed that if not the wife, the

husband has a responsibility to take care of the child.

Considering all these

Click Here to Read the rest of this document