Partly allowed¶41

Smt Pushpalatha v. M Mahesh Kumar

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2025WP/2335/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

interim maintenance enhancement; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act; Section 151 CPC; adverse inference for non-filing of statement of assets and liabilities; Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr (AIR 2021 SC 569); twin daughters; husband's salary Rs.35 lakhs per annum; no vakalath filed; Principal Family Judge Udupi; M.C.No.54/2024; I.A.No.III; order dated 25.09.2024 modified; maintenance enhanced to Rs.50,000 per month; writ petition under Articles 226 and 227; Karnataka High Court GM-FC; Pushpalatha v. Mahesh Kumar; partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the order dated 25.09.2024 in I.A.No.III in M.C.No.54/2024 enhancing maintenance to Rs.50,000/- per month for the twin daughters; writ petition partly allowed; all I.As. in the petition closed. ¶41

Smt Pushpalatha Vs M Mahesh Kumar — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month granted by the Family Court to the twin daughters should be enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month, having regard to the husband's asserted salary of Rs.35 lakhs per annum. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

The order passed in I.A.No.III in M.C.No.54/2024 dated 25.09.2024 by the Principal Family Judge, Udupi, is modified and maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month is granted to the twin daughters; the writ petition is partly allowed and all I.As. in the petition stand closed.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the wife, the husband had not filed the statement of assets and liabilities; hence an adverse inference has to be drawn (the sentence continues on the next page: 'has to be drawn.'), and the husband had neither filed the statement nor appeared before the Court.

¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Hon'ble Smt. Justice Lalitha Kanneganti), 16.07.2025 — WP No. 2335 of 2025 (GM-FC): The wife-petitioner sought enhancement of the interim maintenance granted under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 151 CPC by the Principal Family Judge, Udupi in I.A.No.III in M.C.No.54/2024 dated 25.09.2024 (Rs.25,000/- per month for twin daughters and Rs.30,000/- litigation expenses). Though notice was served, the husband filed no vakalath, did not appear, and failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities; accordingly, an adverse inference was drawn, and the wife's assertion that the husband earns Rs.35 lakhs per annum was taken into account. Maintenance was enhanced to Rs.50,000/- per month for the twin daughters by modifying the impugned order; the writ petition was partly allowed and all I.As. in the petition were closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26354 WP No. 2335 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 2335 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT PUSHPALATHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O M MAHESH KUMAR, D/O P SHANKAR RAO, NAGARAJA NILAYA, PADEBETTU VILLAGE, P.O.PADUBIDRI, KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT -574111

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ARUNACHALAM S FOR SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Location: HIGH

¶15

M MAHESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O P V MANJUNATH VINEYARD SYMPHONY, FLAT NO.001, ROAD NO.6, VIVEKANADAPURAM SAINIKPURI POST, MEDCHAL MALKAJGIRI DIST, TELENGANA STATE-500094

¶16

(SRI. M.MAHESH KUMAR – RESPONDENT SD)

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 25.09.2024 BY ENHANCING THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT AWARDED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, UDUPI, IN IA NO.III FILED BY PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC IN MC NO. 54/2024 (ANNX-A).

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:26354 WP No. 2335 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.III in M.C.No.54/2024 dated 25.09.2024 by the Principal Family Judge, Udupi, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance of twin daughters from the date of application and litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner/wife is before this Court.

¶26

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

¶27

The wife had filed I.A.No.III seeking interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month for her twin daughters and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation expenses.

¶28

The Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month considering the fact that an amount of Rs.30,000/- is already being paid by the husband.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the husband is not paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- as stated

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26354 WP No. 2335 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

by the husband and the Court without considering all these aspects had granted only an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is submitted that the salary of the husband is an amount of Rs.35 lakhs per annum and the wife is seeking an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month for her twin daughters. It is submitted that he has failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities. It is submitted that in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr¹ , an adverse inference has to be drawn. It is submitted that as the husband has not filed the statement of assets and liabilities, as asserted by the wife in the petition that he is earning an amount of Rs.35 lakhs per annum has to be considered.

¶33

Though notice is served on the respondent, no vakalath is filed.

¶34

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/wife, perused the entire material on record. This Court has perused the order. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the wife, the husband had not filed the statement of assets and liabilities. Hence, an adverse inference

¶35

1 AIR 2021 SC 569

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26354 WP No. 2335 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

has to be drawn. The wife had sought for an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month to the daughters and according to the husband, he is paying an amount of Rs.30,000/- and the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is the case of the wife that he is not paying an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The husband had neither filed the statement of assets and liabilities before the Court nor has appeared before this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The order passed in I.A.No.III in M.C.No.54/2024 dated 25.09.2024 by the Principal Family Judge, Udupi, is modified and maintenance of an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month is granted to the twin daughters.

¶41

ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed .

¶42

iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶44

MEG

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49

Smt Pushpalatha v. M Mahesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpalatha v. M Mahesh Kumar

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

Sri Madhusudhan D Vs Smt C Manjularani

Smt. Hemavathi Vs the Icici Lombard Motor Insurance

Sri Ramachandra K. Vs Smt. Geethashree a

Smt. Sowmya v Vs Lokesh K

Sri Balaraj Vs Smt Lakshmidevi

D.N. Ramakrishna Vs T.G. Swetha