Mr. Vinod Kumar P Vs Mrs. Varalakshmi

MR. VINOD KUMAR P., AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O LATE P.PRAKASH, R/AT NO.1, 3^RD CROSS, KUMBARAGUNDI LAYOUT, BEHIND S.J.P. POLICE STATION, J.C.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

MRS. VARALAKSHMI W/O MR. VINOD KUMAR P., D/O OBALESH, R/AT NO.2, MARIYAMMA BLOCK, RAMACHANDRAPURA, JALAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 013

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI.NAGABHUSHAN R., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/02/2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU IN M.C. NO.2065/2021 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY THE RESPONDENT A MONTHLY INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF INR. 15,000/- (INDIAN NATIONAL RUPEES OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND ONLY) TOWARDS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RESPONDENT WIFE AND INR 5,000/- (INDIAN NATIONAL RUPEES OF FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) TOWARDS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CHILD, (CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-A) BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT.

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:20453 WP No. 7638 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶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 on the interim application seeking maintenance in M.C.No.2065/2021 dated 23.02.2023 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.

¶25

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

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the wife had sought for interim maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the child and the trial Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the mother and an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the child, without even there being an application for the same. It is submitted that the trial Court had passed an order without giving any reasons and without even considering the requirement and the status of both the parties. It is submitted that the said order is bereft of reasons and the same needs to be set aside.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20453 WP No. 7638 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/mother

¶30

submits that the matter may be remanded back to the trial Court and there shall be time frame for the trial Court to decide the matter in an expeditious manner.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. When the application is filed by the wife and even if there is no representation on behalf of the husband, still, the responsibility of the Court is to pass a reasoned order. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the husband, why the trial Court has granted maintenance to the wife when there is no application for maintenance by the wife is not known. The application is filed seeking maintenance only for the child. In that case, this

¶32

Court is not able to understand why the Court had granted maintenance to the wife. By way of an interim order, this Court had directed the petitioner/husband to pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance. It is also an undisputed fact that he is working as an employee in BBMP and earning an amount of Rs.32,000/- net salary per month.

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20453 WP No. 7638 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Considering the submissions and balancing the interest

¶36

of both the parties, this Court is passing the following order:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The order impugned dated 23.02.2023 passed in M.C.No.2065/2021 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration.

¶39

ii. The petitioner/father shall pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the child, till disposal of the I.A., subject to further orders to be passed by the Court.

¶40

iii. The trial Court shall dispose of the I.A. within 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order without granting unnecessary adjournments.

¶41

iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶42

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

¶43

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶44

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Mr. Vinod Kumar P v. Mrs. Varalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vinod Kumar P v. Mrs. Varalakshmi

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

Bipin Bhadran Vs Veena Sreekala Nair

Sri Narayanan v Vs Smt Ashwini L S

Smt Meenakshi Patil Vs Dr Amaresh Virupanagouda Malipatil

S R Kamalamma Vs Suvarnamma

Sri. Suresha Vs Smt. Gayatri. H. M.

Sri M S Balasubramanya Vs Smt Sandhya S