Dismissed¶¶46

Sri Avin Chandran v. Smt Usha Kumari @ Usha Pillai

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2025WP/30736/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance – writ under Article 227 against Family Court order – clean hands doctrine – suppression and misrepresentation of address and income – loss of job plea rejected – ex-parte divorce and substituted service in earlier round – writ petition dismissed – High Court of Karnataka, Lalitha Kanneganti J., 18.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

A party who comes before the Court seeking a relief should come to the Court with clean hands. ¶¶35

Sri Avin Chandran Vs Smt Usha Kumari @ Usha Pillai — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order in I.A.No.5 in M.C.No.833/2010 granting maintenance should be quashed. +2 more

¶¶18

Court's answer

The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court granting maintenance.

¶¶41

Ratio / Principle

A party who comes before the Court seeking a relief should come to the Court with clean hands.

¶¶35

Key takeaways

The petitioner furnished a wrong address in the writ petition despite having deposed on oath before the trial Court that he vacated 62/A R.T.Nagar in 2009, amounting to playing with the process of the Court.ratio¶¶40
Considering the bank statements, the petitioner's previous conduct, and the suppression and misrepresentation of facts, a litigant like the petitioner is not entitled to any kind of relief from this Court.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India dismissed. The petitioner-husband challenged the order in I.A.No.5 in M.C.No.833/2010 by which the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru granted interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.35,000/- per month to the daughter from 11.07.2024 till disposal of the petition, along with Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses to the wife, contending that he lost his job on 13.11.2024 and could not pay. Held: a litigant seeking relief must come to the Court with clean hands; although the petitioner had deposed before the Family Court that he vacated his 62/A R.T.Nagar premises in 2009, he furnished the very same address in the writ petition, demonstrating suppression and misrepresentation of facts. Considering the bank statements filed, his previous conduct (including an earlier ex-parte divorce obtained through substituted service after suppressing the wife's address, as found by this Court in the earlier round), the petitioner was held not entitled to any relief, and the Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court's order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:21107 WP No. 30736 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 30736 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.AVIN CHANDRAN S/O SWAMINATHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO. 62/A 6^TH C CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD MANORAYANAPALYA R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE -560 032

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT.USHA KUMARI @ USHA PILLAI D/O KUNJU PILLAI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.6, 1^ST CROSS VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT NEAR VAGDEVI SCHOOL MUNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE -560 037

¶15

NOW RESIDING AT R/O FLAT NO. 2, SECOND FLOOR BUILDING D 2, QUADIRA PLAZA HAVERI -CURTI, PONDA GOA -403401

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.JAMES P. ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN I.A NO.5 OF M.C. NO. 833/2010 PASSED BY THE COURT

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:21107 WP No. 30736 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

OF V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU DATED: 15.10.2024 (ANNEXURE-A).

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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.5 in M.C.No.833/2010 dated 15.10.2024 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the wife and an amount of Rs.35,000/- per month to the daughter from 11.07.2024 till the disposal of the petition and litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the wife.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the husband had lost his job on 13.11.2024. He was working as a travel agent and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. As he lost his job, he is not in a position to pay the maintenance and all these aspects were not considered by the Court.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:21107 WP No. 30736 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife

¶31

submits that the petitioner is in the habit of suppressing and misrepresenting the facts before the Court. He has placed the bank statements before this Court, wherein the bank credits for the period of 01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 is shown as Rs.69,58,182.38/- and if the submission has to be taken on its base value, his bank credit should not be more than an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. It is submitted that in the earlier round, when he had obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce, when they had filed Misc.No.126/2013 to set aside that order, the Court had allowed it and the same was questioned before this Court. This Court while dismissing the petition filed by the husband had given a finding that there is suppression on the part of the husband with regard to the address of the wife and when he is constantly in touch with her, still that fact was not brought to the notice of the Court or to the wife and he has taken out notice by way of substituted service and on that basis, he had obtained an ex-parte decree and this Court had observed that there is no illegality with the order passed by the Family Court and dismissed the writ petition.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21107 WP No. 30736 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that before the Family Court, he had deposed that in the year 2009, he had shifted from 62/A of R.T.Nagar to 2305 of Sahakar Nagar address and he does not remember the month of the shift. On the date of filing judgment in the case on 01.10.2012, he was staying in 2305 of Sahakar Nagar address. Learned counsel points out that in the present writ petition, he again shows his address as 62/A of R.T.Nagar, which clearly demonstrates how the petitioner is coming up before the Court with all suppression and misrepresentation of facts. It is submitted that in the evidence, it is stated that he is a freelancer and doing the work of a tourist manager is his hobby. It is submitted that he is having several businesses and he is earning income out of that and this petition has to be dismissed.

¶35

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. A party who comes before the Court seeking a relief should come to the Court with clean hands. When he has deposed before the Court on 15.01.2025 that he has vacated the premises i.e., 62/A of

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:21107 WP No. 30736 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

R.T.Nagar in the year 2009, he gives the very same address in this writ petition.

¶40

The Learned counsel submission has no connection for furnishing an address before this Court. When on oath before the trial Court, he had given evidence that, needs to be taken into consideration and in that case the address he has furnished before the Court is a wrong address and what are the reasons for furnishing such an address before the Court and playing with the process of the court, this court is not able to understand or appreciate.

¶41

Considering the bank statements that are filed, the previous conduct of the petitioner, the address and other suppression and misrepresentation of facts before this Court in the present petition, a litigant like the petitioner is not entitled for any kind of relief from this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:21107 WP No. 30736 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORDER

¶46