Dismissed¶73

Mrs Sonally Natraj v. Mr Chaitanya Pettukola Sriram

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2025WP/16603/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance enhancement refused; writ court not an executing court; applications under Arts. 226/227 Constitution dismissed with liberty to approach Family Court Bengaluru (MC 1792/2015, order dt. 05.09.2022; Rs.30,000/- p.m. + Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses upheld untouched); affidavit of assets and liabilities; suppression of assets by both spouses; Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 relied on; Canadian (Ontario) divorce proceedings noted; Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.; NC: 2025:KHC:13004.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief to either side. Both writ petitions dismissed with liberty reserved to the wife and the husband to agitate the matter before the Family Court; pending interlocutory applications (I.A.Nos.1/2024-3/2024) do not survive and pale into insignificance. ¶73

Mrs Sonally Natraj Vs Mr Chaitanya Pettukola Sriram — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petitions challenging the Family Court's order dated 05.09.2022 in M.C.No.1792/2015 (interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- per month plus Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses) warrant interference - the wife seeking enhancement to Rs.5,00,000/- per month and the husband seeking setting aside/modification of the order as exorbitant. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere with the Family Court's maintenance order for the present, reserving to both parties the liberty to agitate their grievance before the Family Court by producing correct and truthful affidavits of assets and liabilities, adducing evidence, stepping into the witness box and filing applications for production, summoning and inventories there.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Applications filed for the first time before the High Court in writ jurisdiction (I.A.Nos.1/2024-3/2024 seeking asset-affidavit directions, enhanced maintenance and production of documents) are not entertainable; such applications must be filed before the concerned (Family) Court, since the writ Court cannot be made an Executing Court either to recover maintenance or to secure production of documents as an ancillary proceeding.

¶16

Key takeaways

It was expressly made clear that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter - neither on maintenance, nor on the divorce proceedings or question of jurisdiction before the Canadian Court.ratio¶ORDER(ii)
Finding recorded against both spouses: the parties are married with no dispute as to marriage and no issues from the marriage, but both have not revealed their true assets and liabilities and have suppressed materials before the Family Court.obiter¶14
General observation (with reference to Rajnesh v/s Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324): in Family Court maintenance matters, more often both parties make deliberate attempts to suppress material facts to obtain favourable orders, thereby misleading the Court - conduct contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Pradeep Singh Yerur, J., 27.03.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:13004) - Cross writ petitions by wife (WP 16603/2023, Arts. 226 & 227) and husband (WP 20749/2023, Art. 227) against the Family Court Bengaluru order dt. 05.09.2022 in M.C.No.1792/2015 granting the wife interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- p.m. and Rs.25,000/- litigation expenses - DISMISSED. The Court refused to entertain the wife's fresh I.A.Nos.1-3/2024 (affidavit of assets/liabilities, enhancement to Rs.5,00,000/- p.m., production of documents) because they were filed for the first time in writ jurisdiction: the hierarchy of courts requires such applications before the concerned court and the writ court will not act as an Executing Court. Parties left free to agitate before the Family Court with correct and truthful affidavits of assets and liabilities, evidence and applications for production/summoning/inventories. No opinion expressed on merits - neither on maintenance nor on the divorce/jurisdiction proceedings before the Ontario (Canada) court, where the wife's own petition had been dismissed on contest with CAD 15,000 costs (order dt. 12.08.2019). Observed (obiter) that both spouses suppressed true assets and liabilities, contrary to the law laid down in Rajnesh v/s Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 16603 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

C/W

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 20749 OF 2023 (GM-FC) IN WP No. 16603/2023 BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS SONALLY NATRAJ W/O MR. CHAITANYA PETTUKOLA SRIRAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O MR. T.S.S. NATARAJHUN, RESIDING AT: D1 MILLERS APARTMENT, 19 MILLER ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA, INDIA-560 046.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NANJAPPA M G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR CHAITANYA PETTUKOLA SRIRAM S/O MR. P.B. SRIRAM, AGED 37 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS PA HOLDER, MRS. RITAMBARAPRAJNAA, RESIDING AT NO.190-B, POONAMPALLI HIGH ROAD APARTMENT, PETUKOLA TOWERS, B BLOCK, KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010, TAMIL NADU, INDIA.

¶14

ALSO RESIDING AT; SUITE 3904, 18 YOUNGE STREET, TORONTO ONTARIO, M5E 1Z8, PHONE NO: +1647-9982447 WHATS APP:+1647-9982447 LAND LINE:+1844 4842526 OFFICE ADDRESS: 67 MOWAT AVENUE, TORONTO, ONTARIO M6K3E3.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT. RAJARAJESHWARI T S.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 05/09/2022 IN MC.NO. 1792/2015 IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BANGALORE AT ANNX-E BY ENHANCING THE MONTHLY MAINTENANCE FROM RS. 30,000 TO RS 5,00,000 FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION ALONG WITH LEGAL COSTS TO BE PAID TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF PETITION BY THE RESPONDENT(ANNX-E) AND ETC.,

¶20

IN WP NO. 20749/2023

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

CHAITANYA PETTUKOLA SRIRAM AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O P B SRIRAM REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RITAMBHARA PRAJNAA W/O LATE P.B SRIRAM AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT DOOR NO: 190-B, POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD, APARTMENT 9-C, PETTUKOLA TOWERS, B BLOCK KALIPAUK CHENNAI-600 010.

¶23

...PETITIONER

¶24

(BY SMT. RAJARAJESHWARI T S.,ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

SONALLY NATRAJ AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O CHAITANYA PETTUKOLA SRIRAM RESIDING AT NO.D1 MILLERS APARTMENTS, 19 MILLERS ROAD, BANGALORE-46.

¶27

...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NANJAPPA M G.,ADVOCATE)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶30

05/09/2022 PASSED IN MC 1792 (ANNEXURE-A) BY THE HONBLE IV JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE AND IN TURN TO DISMISS OR MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED IN IA XIV IN MC NO. 1792/2015.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

These two petitions are preferred by the wife and the husband challenging the impugned order dated 05.09.2022 in M.C.No.1792/2015 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.XIV.

¶35

The rival petitions are filed by both the husband and wife and hence parties are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of brevity.

¶36

The wife has filed this petition questioning the order whereby the learned Family Court awarded interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- from the date of application and also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

¶37

The husband in the co-ordinate writ petition has challenged the very same impugned orders of

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶39

maintenance of Rs.30,000/- being awarded to the wife and also the litigation expenses as exorbitant. During the pendency of this petition, three applications are filed by the wife i.e. I.A.Nos.1/2024, 2/2024 and 3/2024.

¶40

I.A.No.1/2024 is for direction to the respondent to produce affidavit of assets and liabilities and other details. I.A.No.2/2024 is filed seeking for maintenance of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) per month and I.A.No.3/2024 is filed seeking production of certain documents from the respondent.

¶41

It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the wife that the impugned order passed by the Family Court is illegal, arbitrary and is firstly liable to be set aside as the learned Judge of the Family Court has not taken into consideration the materials averred and the documents produced by the wife with regard to the educational qualification, job and assignments and the Companies owned and promoted by the husband and the

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶43

income that he would generate in the course of his

¶44

business and other activities.

¶45

In the application filed under I.A.No.XIV, the wife had claimed maintenance amount of Rs.5 lakhs per month and litigation expenses of Rs.3 lakhs.

¶46

On the basis of the materials placed on record by both the parties, the Family Court awarded maintenance of Rs.30,000/per month and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

¶47

On the challenge made to the impugned order before this Court it is stated that three applications are filed to secure certain documents with regard to income and assets and liabilities of respondent - husband and further seeking maintenance of Rs.5 lakhs by way of enhancement to earlier award of Rs.30,000/- and certain documents to be produced. These applications are filed before this Court for the first time and none of these applications are filed before the Family Court.

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶49

The respondent - husband has filed detailed

¶50

objections to the main petition as well as to all these applications along with a petition to set aside the impugned order of awarding maintenance at Rs.30,000/per month. It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for respondent - husband that the wife herself had approached the Superior Court of Justice at Ontario, Canada, whereby she had filed a petition seeking for divorce and maintenance, support for the wife, equalization of net family properties, de hors of the petition. Upon adjudication of the matter contested by respondent -husband, the proceedings before the Canada Court came to be dismissed by imposing cost on the wife Rs.15,000/in Canadian dollars vide order dated 12.08.2019. The copy of the said order has been annexed along with the petition filed by the respondent - husband.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent-husband further contended that when the wife herself initiated divorce proceedings and other ancillary reliefs in the

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶53

divorce petition such as maintenance and cost, she had subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Court, which was effectively defendant by the husband and on contest the petition of the wife came to be dismissed by imposing cost.

¶54

It is further submitted by the learned counsel for respondent-husband that pursuant to the proceedings before the Canadian Court, the husband filed a divorce petition before the Family Court at Bengaluru in which, after service of notice, the wife has appeared and she has filed the present petition, challenging the order of maintenance.

¶55

It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent-husband that presently he is not having any source of income and that his wife was a joint property shareholder along with the husband and she has sold certain properties. It is further contended that the wife has necessary source of income in Bengaluru and that she is also equally liable to the liabilities of the properties, which

¶56

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶57

she holds jointly along with the husband in Canada. To avoid such liabilities, the wife has filed the present application seeking maintenance. Therefore, he contends that even the wife has not come before the Family Court with clean hands by filing her source of income and the details of her property. On these grounds, learned counsel for the husband seeks dismissal of the petition filed by the wife and consequently seeks to allow his petition.

¶58

I have heard learned counsel for the wife and learned counsel for the husband in both petitions. The present two petitions are filed questioning the order of maintenance awarded by the Family Court at ₹30,000/per month. It is seen that the parties to the proceedings are married, there is no dispute with regard to marriage, there are no issues from the marriage, rival claims are made by both the wife and the husband, both have not revealed their true assets and liabilities and they have suppressed materials before the Family Court.

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶60

It is seen that in the Family Court matters where maintenance is sought, more often, both parties make deliberate attempts to suppress material facts with an intention to see that they get a favourable orders thereby misleading the Court and not presenting the correct facts, contrary to the law laid down by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v/s Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324.

¶61

Be that as it may, learned counsel for petitionerwife has filed three applications, namely, IA.No.1/2024 for direction to the respondent-husband to produce an affidavit of assets and liabilities and other details, IA.No.2/2024 is filed seeking maintenance and IA.No.3/2024 is filed seeking production of certain documents from the respondent-husband. These three applications are filed for the first time before this Court in the writ jurisdiction. The applications that are to be filed before the Family Court, before which the jurisdiction is available, would not be entertained by this Court, to make

¶62

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶63

this Court as an Executing Court, either to recover the maintenance amount or for production of certain documents as an ancillary proceedings. The hierarchy of the Courts provides that relevant applications will have to be filed before the concerned Court.

¶64

Now coming to the order of maintenance granted by the Family Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order for the present as parties are at liberty to agitate their grievance by production of correct and truthful affidavit of assets and liabilities, adduce their evidence and place materials, which they urge before this Court and any such materials that are available with them by stepping into the witness box and file all such applications for production, summoning and inventories before the Family Court.

¶65

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i) This Court is not inclined to accept both these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are

¶68

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13004 WP No. 16603 of 2023 C/W WP No. 20749 of 2023

¶69

dismissed reserving liberty to both the wife

¶70

and the husband to agitate the matter before the Family Court;

¶71

ii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, either on maintenance or the divorce on the proceedings of jurisdiction before the Canadian Court;

¶72

iii) Ordered accordingly.

¶73

In view of dismissal of the petitions, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and the same pale into insignificance.

¶74

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶75

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

¶76

AG,CPN

Mrs Sonally Natraj v. Mr Chaitanya Pettukola Sriram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Sonally Natraj v. Mr Chaitanya Pettukola Sriram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Soubhagya Vs Universal Sompo Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd.

Thimmegowda v Vs Jaya Kumara H M

B.M. Sunil Vs R. Sandeep

Ankita Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Rajgarhia

Mr John Mathew Vs Mrs Betzy Baboos

Maheshkumar D Vs Smt B N Bhagyamma