Disposed¶42

Chetan Srivastava v. Reetu Sinha

Karnataka HC20 Mar 2025WP/17936/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; writ petition disposed with directions to trial Court; stay of maintenance continued till judgment; Rajnesh v/s Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 to be considered; nullity petition under Section 11 read with Section 5(i); M.C.No.268/2020; VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District; quantum of maintenance left open; pending I.A.No.1/2025 infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; trial Court directed to proceed to pronounce judgment taking all contentions into consideration along with the Apex Court judgment in Rajnesh v/s Neha ((2021) 2 SCC 324); the stay of interim maintenance ordered by this Court continues till the trial Court pronounces judgment; no opinion expressed on merits or quantum. ¶42

Chetan Srivastava Vs Reetu Sinha — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 05.07.2023 of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, granting interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.268/2020 ought to be quashed. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to proceed further, the parties having already adduced evidence and the matter being at the stage of pronouncement of judgment.

¶33

Key takeaways

All contentions urged before the trial Court and this Court shall be taken into consideration by the trial Court while passing judgment, and either party aggrieved may file necessary petitions challenging the resulting order.ratio¶37
The trial Court shall take into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh v/s Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324, while deciding the matter.ratio¶38
The interim order of stay of the interim maintenance granted by this Court will continue till the judgment is pronounced by the trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR, J.) disposed of a writ petition by a husband under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 05.07.2023 of the VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, granting the wife interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- p.m. under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in M.C.No.268/2020 (a Section 11 read with Section 5(i) nullity petition concerning a marriage solemnized on 07.12.2012). With the main proceeding unstayed, evidence concluded and the matter posted for pronouncement of judgment, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the trial Court to proceed, take all contentions into consideration, and consider Rajnesh v/s Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. The Court's stay of the interim maintenance (ordered 05.02.2024) continues till the trial Court pronounces judgment; no opinion was expressed on the merits or the quantum. Pending I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11628 WP No. 17936 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 17936 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHETAN SRIVASTAVA, S/O AJIT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/A FLAT NO.308, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY COMPLEX, ROAD NO.-11, ASHOK NAGAR, KANKERBAGH, PATNA - 800 020, BIHAR.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VINUTHA P. KALE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REETU SINHA, D/O LATE S.K. SINHA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, C/O SAILA SINHA, 501, ROYALE RADHKI GREENS, PHASE 1, SN 30, 1, 2, 3, SHIVARAJ NAGAR, BEHIND FOUNTAIN INN RESTAURANT, RAHATNI PIMPRI-CHICWAD, PUNE, MAHARASTRA - 411 017. ALSO AT TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., EMPLOYEE ID-687070 PIONEER BUILING, EZ UNIT 1 INTERNATIONAL TECH PARK(ITPL),

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:11628 WP No. 17936 of 2023

¶16

BENGALURU.

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(BY SRI. SRINIVASA MURTHY S, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.07.2023 PASSED BY 6TH ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU PASSED ORDER IN IA.NO.5 UNDER SEC 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955 IN M.C.NO-268/2020 DATED 08.12.2021 IN ANNEXURE-A GRANTING MAINTENANCE OOF RS.10,000/- PER MONTH AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioner/husband

¶24

challenging the order passed by the learned VI Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on interlocutory application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'Act'), in MC.No.268/2020.

¶25

The petitioner herein, who is a husband, preferred a petition under Section 11 read with Section

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:11628 WP No. 17936 of 2023

¶28

5(i) of the Act against the respondent/wife seeking declaration of marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 07.12.2012 as null and void. In the course of the petition, an application came to be filed by the respondent/wife under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000-00 p.m. from the date of petition, litigation expenses of Rs.50,000-00 p.m. and medical expenses of Rs.10,000-00 p.m. On contest, the said application came to be allowed partly. The petitioner herein was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.10,000-00 p.m. to the respondent/wife. It is this order which is challenged by the petitioner/husband. This Court, vide order dated 05.02.2024, granted an order of stay of the interim maintenance passed by the trial Court, which is continued till date.

¶29

This being the state of affairs, as the main

¶30

proceeding has not been stayed, evidence is recorded by the trial Court and the matter is now presently posted for

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:11628 WP No. 17936 of 2023

¶33

pronouncement of judgment. There are various contentions urged in this petition by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also the learned counsel for the respondent raises several contentions in regard to the non-filing of assets and liabilities and the petitioner not subjecting himself to cross-examination. All these aspects would have been decided by the trial Court, in which the parties are already at lis and in view of this Court not staying the main proceedings, the evidence is already concluded and it is at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. Therefore, the present petition would have to be disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to proceed further in the matter as the parties have already adduced evidence and the matter is at the stage of pronouncement of judgment. In view of this Court granting stay of the interim order of maintenance of Rs.10,000-00 no amount is paid by the petitioner/husband either before this Court or before the trial Court.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:11628 WP No. 17936 of 2023

¶36

Be that as it may. It is now left to the learned

¶37

trial Court to proceed further in the matter, as the evidence is already recorded and the matter is now posted for judgment. All contentions which are urged before the trial Court, and this court shall be taken into consideration while passing the judgment. If at all either of the parties are aggrieved, they would be at liberty to file necessary petitions challenging the said order. It is needless to mention that the trial Court shall take into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

¶38

case of Rajnesh v/s Neha reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 , disposed of on 04.11.2020 while deciding the matter on hand. It is needless to mention that the interim order

¶39

passed by this Court will continue till the judgment is pronounced by the trial court. It is also needless to mention that the trial Court shall proceed further as this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, including the quantum of awarding of the maintenance.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:11628 WP No. 17936 of 2023

¶42

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending I.A.No.1/2025, do not survive for consideration and the

¶44

same pale into insignificance.

¶45

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶46