SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22632

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ASHOK S. KINAGI
SRI. KIRANKUMAR S/O. UMAPATHY HIREMATH – Appellant
Versus
SMT ROOPA ALIAS POOJA – Respondent
WP 101555/2026



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4403 WP No. 101555 of 2026

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 101555 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. KIRANKUMAR S/O. UMAPATHY HIREMATH, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. TECHNICIAN, R/O. C/O. RUDRAMMA, W/O. UMAPATHY HIREMATH,

POST: ELEHOLE, HULGINAHOLE VILLAGE, TQ. HARIHAR, DIST. DAVANAGERE-577516.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANJANEYA M, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. ROOPA @ POOJA W/O. KIRANKUMAR HIREMATH, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. C/O. SHIVAYOGI BASALIHALLIMATH,

7TH CROSS, JANNAT NAGAR, DHARWAD.

2. KUMARI. CHANDANA D/O. KIRANKUMAR HIREMATH, AGE. 5 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. C/O. SHIVAYOGI BASALIHALLIMATH,

7TH CROSS, JANNAT NAGAR, DHARWAD, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR (SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPTD BY HER N/G MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1)

…RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B (BY SRI. P.S. JADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)

SHELAR Date: 2026.03.27

15:51:44 +0530 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER 12.11.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.303-2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DHARWAD ON THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.III UNDER SECTION 144 (1) OF THE BNSS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY WAY OF WRIT OF

CERTIORARI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

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

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4403 WP No. 101555 of 2026

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI )

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging

the order dated 12.11.2025 passed on I.A.No.3 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.303/2024 on the file of the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court, Darwad.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this writ

petition are as follows:

3. The respondents filed a petition under Section

144(1) of BNSS Act seeking maintenance. The said case was registered as Criminal Miscellaneous No.303/2024. The respondents filed I.A.No.3 seeking for interim maintenance for a sum of Rs.20,000/- each to the respondents. It is contended that the petitioner is working as an engineer and earning Rs.60,000/- per month, and is having landed properties. It is contended that the petitioner has not made any arrangement for the livelihood of the respondents. The said application was opposed by the petitioner. The petitioner, despite granting sufficient opportunity, has not

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4403 WP No. 101555 of 2026

HC-KAR

filed objection to I.A.No.3. The trial court, considering the material on record, allowed I.A.No.3 and awarded an interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/- to respondent No.1, and Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.2 vide order dated 12.11.2025. The petitioner aggrieved by the order passed

on I.A.No.3, filed this writ petition.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner is having no source of income to pay the interim maintenance as awarded by the Family Court. He submits that the interim maintenance awarded by the Family Court is exorbitant. He also submits that respondent No.1 is earning and getting a monthly income of Rs.8,000/-, and she is capable of maintaining herself and also respondent No.2. He submits that the petitioner has suffered an injury in the road traffic accident, and he is unable to pay the interim maintenance awarded by the

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4403 WP No. 101555 of 2026

HC-KAR

learned Family Court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to

allow the writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that the petitioner is working as an engineer, and earning salary of Rs.60,000/- p.m. He submits that respondent No.1 is not working as alleged by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner himself has admitted that he is getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- and that the Family C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top