Smt. Kavya Shree H G., v. Sri Dr. H.B. Muralidhara

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2025WP/22293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance enhancement under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act; writ petition under Article 227 Constitution of India; WP No. 22293 of 2024 (GM-FC); M.C.No.261/2022, IV Additional Senior Civil Judge Bengaluru Rural; maintenance raised from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month; husband's salary Rs.1,00,513/- versus take-home Rs.60,000/-; non-working wife since 2011; child's school fee Rs.30,000/- per year; order dated 31.05.2022 modified; writ disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Interim maintenance enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month by modifying the trial Court's order in I.A.No.II in M.C.No.261/2022 dated 31.05.2022; husband to continue paying the child's education expenses; all I.As. in the writ petition closed. ¶¶51

Smt. Kavya Shree H G., Vs Sri Dr. H.B. Muralidhara — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month granted to the wife (with Rs.30,000/- per year school fee for the son) under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act ought to be enhanced. +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

Granting maintenance of only Rs.10,000/- per month when the husband's salary is Rs.1,00,513/- is not a reasoned order.

¶¶47

Ratio / Principle

As the wife stopped working in 2011 at the husband's insistence and the parties have been residing separately since 2022, the Court does not expect her to immediately secure employment despite being a graduate; the husband must maintain the wife and the son.

¶¶42

Key takeaways

This Court endorses the trial Court's observation that it is the duty of the husband to take care of the needs of the wife and the son.ratio¶¶42
The respondent/husband shall continue to pay the education expenses of the child.ratio¶¶50
Any likelihood of settlement between the parties is to be worked out before the trial Court, where the main matter remains pending.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti), in a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution arising from an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, modified the order in I.A.No.II in M.C.No.261/2022 dated 31.05.2022 of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, enhancing the wife's interim maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month. The Court held that granting Rs.10,000/- per month against the husband's salary of Rs.1,00,513/- was 'not a reasoned order'; noted that the wife, a graduate who stopped working in 2011 at the husband's insistence, could not be expected to find immediate employment; and directed the husband to continue paying the child's education expenses. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24367 WP No. 22293 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 22293 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. KAVYA SHREE H.G., W/O DR H.B.MURALIDHARA, D/O GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, RESHMENAGAR (GAANIGARAPALYA) THALAGHATTAPURA POST, BSK 6^TH STAGE, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062

¶10

ALSO R/AT RESIDENCE OF GOVINDAPPA, HOYSALAKATTE, HULIYAR HOBLI, CHIKKANAYANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 218

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SMT.SMITHA S MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDHARTH B.MUCHANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

SRI DR.H.B. MURALIDHARA, S/O BASAVARAJAIAH B, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT CIIRC, JYOTHY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, TATHAGUNI, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 082

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:24367 WP No. 22293 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

30.03.2024 IN MC NO. 261/2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL UPON THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT I.E. ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.II in M.C.No.261/2022 dated 31.05.2022 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, whereby the trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and an amount of Rs.30,000/- per year as school fee of the son till disposal of the petition, the petitioner/wife is before this Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance granted by the trial Court.

¶26

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶27

The wife had filed I.A.No.II under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month to herself and the male child and an amount of Rs.50,000/- per year towards cost and expenses for litigation. While passing this order, the trial Court had

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24367 WP No. 22293 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

considered the contentions of both the parties. The Court had observed that though it is the case of the wife that the husband is earning an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per month, she has not produced any material to substantiate her case. The objections

¶31

of the husband shows that he is drawing salary of Rs.1,00,513/- and after deductions under various schemes, he would draw an amount of Rs.23,250/-. On the basis of the objections, it is clear that some of the deductions are voluntary and not statutory. The trial Court had observed that the husband can control the voluntary investments, deductions and can retain some more amount and utilize it towards the maintenance of the wife and the son. The Court had also observed that merely because the wife is a graduate and able to earn herself, he cannot be absolved from his liabilities on the said ground and even she is a graduate she would be entitled to claim maintenance and the husband is legally bound to maintain the wife. It is also observed that it is the contention of the husband that he used to pay the education expenses of the

¶32

son, but he has not produced any documents regarding payment of the same. Except some bank account statements, the wife has also not produced material authenticated

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24367 WP No. 22293 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

documents to prove the expenses. Accordingly, the trial Court had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance and an amount of Rs.30,000/- per year as school fee of the son.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that when the husband is earning more than an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, when the wife is not working, their maintenance cannot be taken care with an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. It is submitted that the amount that is granted by the trial Court is not an appropriate interim maintenance. It is submitted that the amount needs to be enhanced considering the requirements of the wife and the son.

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that thought his salary is an amount of Rs.1,00,513/-, after deduction, his take home salary is an amount of Rs.60,000/-. He has parents, whom he has to support and the Court had rightly granted the maintenance and there are no grounds to interfere with the said order. It is submitted that compromise talks are going on and there is a likelihood of settlement and hence the matter may be adjourned.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24367 WP No. 22293 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶41

perused the entire material on record. With regard to the settlement, this writ petition is arising out of I.A.No.II filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The matter is pending before the trial Court and if there is any likelihood of settlement, the same could be worked out before the trial Court. Then coming to the facts of this case, the husband's salary is Rs.1,00,513/- and in the deductions, he is showing some EMIs and other things and it is stated that his take home salary is Rs.60,000/-. He is living in a house which he bought on the loan from the bank and he also do not have to pay any amount towards the house rent. When it comes to the wife, she

¶42

has to take care of the accommodation and all other requirements. The parties are residing separately from the year 2022. It is the case of the wife that though she is a graduate, because of the insistence of the husband she stopped working when they got married in the year 2011. When the wife is not working till 2022, this Court do not expect that immediately the wife will get a job with her qualification. The trial Court rightly observed that it is the duty of the husband to take care of the needs of the wife and the son, but When the husband is getting

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:24367 WP No. 22293 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

an amount of Rs.1,00,513/- granting an amount of Rs.10,000/-

¶47

per month towards maintenance is not a reasoned order. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. The order passed in I.A.No.II in M.C.No.261/2022 dated 31.05.2022 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural, is modified and the maintenance is enhanced from an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶50

ii. The respondent/husband shall continue to pay the education expenses of the child.

¶51

iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶52

iv. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶53

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶54

MEG

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Smt. Kavya Shree H G., v. Sri Dr. H.B. Muralidhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavya Shree H G., v. Sri Dr. H.B. Muralidhara

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Sushith Sangalpura Vs Smt. Smitha. P

Smt. K.R Prathibha Vs Sri. Praveen S

Sri P Suresh Vs Smt Deepa

Amit Vyas Vs Savitha Pareek

Sri. Prasanna Kumar C M Vs Smt. Mamatha G

Sri B Mohan Vs Smt Pushpalatha