Abhishek M Vs Smt Kriti H

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27TH OF AUGUST 2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN MC NO.6353 OF 2022 (ANNEXURE G) AND CONSEQUENTIALLY DISMISS IA NO. 3, IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:29088 WP No. 10458 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Heard Sri.Kushal Gowda who represents Sri.Abhinay Y.T learned counsel on record for the petitioner. Also heard Sri.Nikil V.B who represents Sri. Bhadri.R learned counsel on record for the respondent.

¶29

Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.III in M.C No.6353/2022 dated 27.08.2024 this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Respondent herein, who is the wife of the petitioner moved an interlocutory application i.e. I.A.III in M.C No. 6353/2022 seeking the Family Court to direct the petitioner/husband to pay her a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month towards interim maintenance besides Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Family Court through the impugned order directed petitioner to pay respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance and aggrieved by the same this writ petition is filed by the husband.

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:29088 WP No. 10458 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent never resided amicably with the petitioner. Respondent is a yoga teacher and she earns around Rs.30,000/- per month through her profession. On the other hand, petitioner is pursuing his LLB and he is an intern who earns a meager sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned counsel contends that petitioner is under obligation to look after his mother who suffers from cancer and is undergoing chemotherapy. Learned counsel states that respondent can maintain herself as she is financially sound and earns more than that of petitioner and therefore Family Court ought not to have passed the impugned order directing petitioner to pay respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the writ petition.

¶34

The only submission that is made by learned counsel who represents the respondent is that attempts were made for amicable settlement of disputes between the parties, but the settlement failed.

¶35

In the affidavit filed disclosing assets and liabilities responded/wife made a mention that she runs yoga classes and

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:29088 WP No. 10458 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

thereby she earns around Rs.6,000/- per month. No convincing material is produced by the petitioner to show that respondent earns around Rs.30,000/- per month. Though learned counsel for the petitioner produced before this Court and placed much reliance upon the photo stat copies of the Appointment Order dated 24.02.2023 issued by Sri Kumaran Children's Home Educational council, Bengaluru where there is a mention that the gross monthly pay is Rs.35,763/- and a net pay is Rs.30,297/- and also the letter of acceptance, the genuineness of those documents has to be decided by the Trial Court. It is not the version of the petitioner that he produced those documents before the Trial Court. Therefore, the amount mentioned therein as the salary of the respondent cannot be taken into consideration.

¶39

Now coming to assets and liabilities of the petitioner, in the affidavit given disclosing his assets and liabilities, he contended that he is working as an intern under an advocate and he earns Rs.15,000/- per month. He made a clear mention that he holds MBA degree. He also made a mention that he earns Rs.15,000/- only per month. However, the contention of

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:29088 WP No. 10458 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the wife i.e. the respondent herein is that petitioner/ husband runs his own finance business and he has granite business with partnership. However respondent has not produced any proof to that effect. The impugned order reveals that the Family Court failed to take into consideration the earnings of the petitioner/husband. As respondent/wife failed to produce any proof with regard to the occupation and earnings of the petitioner/husband, this Court is of the view that the sum awarded towards interim maintenance which is required to be paid by the petitioner/husband is on higher side. This Court is of the view that the amount awarded towards interim maintenance is required to be reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following:-

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. The order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A. No.III in M.C No.6353/2022 dated 27.08.2024 is modified.

¶45

7 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:29088 WP No. 10458 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

ii. Petitioner/husband shall pay respondent/wife a sum of Rs.7,000/per month towards interim maintenance.

¶49

iii. The amount granted towards interim maintenance shall be paid from the date of presentation of the application for interim maintenance until further orders by the Family Court.

¶50

iv. All arrears to be cleared within a period of 8 weeks.

¶51

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶52

VS

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Abhishek M v. Smt Kriti H

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek M v. Smt Kriti H

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

T. N. Guruprasad Vs Smt. D. N. Pavithra

Vasanthi Vs Subramanya Nayak

Sri Anil Kumar v Vs Raju K S

Sri Rajesh B Vs Smt Lakshmi v

Smt. Thippamma Vs District Health Officer

Mr Jeevan Raj Vs Mrs. Divya