Disposed¶45

Smt. Sowmya v. Vs Lokesh K

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2025WP/3185/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.125(1)(2) Cr.P.C. interim maintenance enhancement; affidavit of assets and liabilities; non-disclosure of husband's income; adverse inference; Rajnesh v. Neha AIR 2021 SC 569; respondent unrepresented, no vakalath filed; Crl.Misc.No.566/2022 I.A.No.2, V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, order dt. 29.12.2023; WP No. 3185 of 2025 (GM-FC), High Court of Karnataka; maintenance enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month for wife and minor daughter; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Modification of the order in I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.566/2022 enhancing maintenance from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month; writ petition disposed of and all I.As. therein closed. ¶45

Smt. Sowmya v Vs Lokesh K — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26370 WP No. 3185 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. 3185 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SOWMYA V W/O LOKESH K , D/O VENKATESHCHARI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶10

AADHYA L D/O LOKESH K , AGED ABOUT 11YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GAURIDIAN I.E. PETITIONER No.1

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.18, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS DEEPANJALI NAGAR BENGALURU -560 06

¶12

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

LOKESH K S/O KEMPACHARI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.325, 2ND FLOOR, 10 TH CROSS 7TH MAIN ROAD, BEHIND VIDYAPEETHA BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE BENGALURU- 560085

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(SRI. LOKESH K-RESPONDENT SD)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26370 WP No. 3185 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.12.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 IN CRL.MISC.NO. 566/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU TO THE EXTENT OF NOT ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.2 IN TOTALITY AND NOT AWARDING MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED FOR IN THE APPLICATION VIDE ANNX-A.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.566/2022 dated 29.12.2023 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/wife is before this Court seeking enhancement of maintenance.

¶25

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

¶26

The wife had filed I.A.No.2 under Section 125 (1)(2) of Cr.P.C. for grant of interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month from the date of petition till disposal of the petition. The wife had filed affidavit regarding assets and liabilities and also produced documents regarding education of the child. In her affidavit, she has shown her qualification as SSLC and she is spending more than an amount of

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:26370 WP No. 3185 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Rs.1,00,000/- for education of the child and she contended that

¶31

she has pledged her gold ornaments and silver articles and also taken loan for the education and maintenance.

¶32

The Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the wife and the child. While granting the maintenance, the Court had considered the fact that though the husband had filed the affidavit of assets and liabilities, he had not shown his income. Secondly, his contention is that the wife had voluntarily deserted him and she is not entitled for any maintenance. Considering the facts of the case and the documents on record, the Family Court held that though the husband has not shown any income, it is his duty to take care of the wife and child and he has to pay the maintenance.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that though the husband had filed his affidavit of assets and liabilities, he had not disclosed his income. It is submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Anr¹ , an adverse

¶34

1 AIR 2021 SC 569

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26370 WP No. 3185 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

inference has to be drawn. It is submitted that considering the requirement of the wife and the child, the Court ought to have granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance as sought by the wife.

¶38

This Court had permitted the learned counsel for the petitioners to take out hand summons on the learned counsel appearing for the respondent before the Family Court and file a memo to that effect and he has filed the memo and notice is served on the counsel appearing for the respondent before the Family Court and in addition to that, notice was also issued to the respondent. In spite of the same, no vakalath is filed on behalf of the respondent.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. When the wife had filed an application seeking maintenance and filed the statement of assets and liabilities, the husband having filed the statement of assets and liabilities ought to have disclosed the income. He had not disclosed his income before the Family Court and he is unrepresented before this Court. The conduct of the husband shows that with an intention to avoid the payment of

¶40

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:26370 WP No. 3185 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

maintenance, he has not appeared before this Court nor has disclosed his income before the Family Court. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i. The order passed in I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.566/2022 dated 29.12.2023 by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is modified and the maintenance is enhanced from an amount of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per month.

¶46

ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶47

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

¶48

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶49

MEG

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt. Sowmya v. Vs Lokesh K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sowmya v. Vs Lokesh K

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

Sri Balaraj Vs Smt Lakshmidevi

Smt Pushpalatha Vs M Mahesh Kumar

D.N. Ramakrishna Vs T.G. Swetha