Smt. Padma Shantharam Hegde, Vs Sri Devi Prashanth

SMT. PADMA SHANTHARAM HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, D/O LATE K SHANTHARAM HEGDE, W/O DEVI PRASHANTH, FLAT NO. 104, MOSACO APARTMENT, LALBAGH, MANGALORE - 575 003.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K CHANDRANATH ARIGA., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI

¶14

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI DEVI PRASHANTH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA SHETTY, R/A 100, MERIDEN D R, NEWARK, DALWARES, D E 19711 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EARLIER RESIDENT OF: 21021, EMERAL MIST, PKWY APT #1411 SPRING, TX 77379, USA.

¶16

…RESPONDENT (V/O DTD:02.07.2026 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶17

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2026 PASSED ON IA NO. III IN CRL. MISC NO. 88/2025 BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT D. K. MANGALURU

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33102 WP No. 16157 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

(ANNX-H), ALLOW IA NO. 3 DATED 19.01.2026 IN CRL. MISC NO. 88/2025 BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT D. K. MANGALURU (ANNX-E) AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CRL. MISC NO. 88/2025 BEFORE THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT D. K. MANGALURU (ANNX-G).

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, D.K., Mangaluru, in IA No.3 in Crl.Misc.No.88/2025 dated 04.03.2026.

¶25

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent is served and unrepresented.

¶26

3. The petitioner's wife filed an application under Section 144(1)(a) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, claiming interim maintenance of Rs.1,70,000/-. But it was rejected based on the ground that there was an order of Hon'ble Surpeme Court in case

¶27

of Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr reported in (2021) 2 SCC

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33102 WP No. 16157 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

324 and directed the respondent to make payment of Rs.30,000/- towards interim maintenance.

¶31

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/wife preferred this petition and learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon citation of this court in WP.No.22006/2022 dated 24.11.2022 in the matter between Mr.Uday Nayak Vs Mrs. Anita Nayak and stated that as per the said citation, comprehensive guidelines were issued regarding filing of affidavit of assets and liabilities by both parties in all maintenance proceedings. In this case, the petitioner already complied the said guidelines, but the respondent failed to file the mandatory affidavit. Even after service of notice and also counsel was represented on his behalf and no adverse inference was drawn against respondent and wrongly rejected the interim application and it is illegal.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:33102 WP No. 16157 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

5. Respondent though engaged counsel, even after granting sufficient opportunity failed to file the objections. As the petitioner is unable to maintain herself, respondent is duty bound to maintain. As per the IT returns of the respondent, he is getting more than USD $2.5 lakhs p.a., from substantial movable and immovable assets owned by him in India and in USA. But the said documents were not considered by the family court. The present Crl.Misc.No.88/2025 filed before the Family Court is a fresh independent proceedings with a separate and distinct

¶36

cause of action. It is a petition for maintenance and different from Domestic Violence proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.122/2018. The interim order of Rs.30,000/per month in Crl.Rev.Pet.No.14/2025 is confined to the revision proceedings and it cannot be treated as bar in granting interim maintenance, in an independent proceedings under different statute. The Family Court was obligated to independently consider whether petitioner was entitled to interim maintenance under this provision,

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33102 WP No. 16157 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

on its own merits, but mechanically rejected the petition.

¶40

The petitioner is 45 years with no income and no assets. Her parents are deceased. She has no immediate family to support her. She was abandoned by the respondent over a decade. Whereas, the respondent is continuing his lavish lifestyle in USA with annual income exceeding $2.5 lakhs. The family court disposed of the application, without any reason. The granting or refusing of the maintenance must be supported by reasons. Hence, petitioner filed detailed affidavit, along with documentary evidence and requested this court to set aside the matter.

¶41

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon a citation of this contemporary bench in WP.No.22006/2022 in the matter between Mr.Uday Nayak Vs Mrs. Anita Nayak dated 24.11.2022 , in which it was held as follows,

¶42

“The issue with regard to plurality of proceedings qua maintenance need not detain this Court for long or delve deep in to the matter. The Apex Court in the case of RAJNESH1(supra)

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33102 WP No. 16157 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

has clearly observed that in the light of overlapping of jurisdictions, the grant of maintenance under Section 20(1)(d) of the DV Act would be in addition to the maintenance granted under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and also further holds that there is no bar to seek maintenance both under the DV Act and under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. or under the Hindu Marriage Act or even under the Hindu (2021) 2 SCC 324 Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The only rider would be that the amount would not overlap and it would be inclusive of maintenance under each jurisdiction and not exclusive.”

¶46

7. Learned counsel for petitioner herein filed application for interim maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.88/2025

¶47

and also filed affidavit of assets and liabilities of the petitioner to the Family Court and Family court observed that petitioner was residing separately from the respondent from July 2014 onwards. As per Crl.Misc.No.122/2018, respondent was directed to pay maintenance of Rs.50,000/- under Section 12 of DV Act. Respondent remained ex-parte and later he preferred Criminal Appeal No.52/2022. It was allowed and matter was remanded and he was also restrained from alienating

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:33102 WP No. 16157 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

the shared household and other properties at Mangalore Taluk and he was directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month.

¶52

8. Aggrieved by the said order, wife filed Crl.Rev.Pet.No.14/2025 and in an order dated 06.08.2025 interim maintenance of Rs.30,000/- was granted. It is further observed that wife is residing in a shared household at Lalbagh main road. Considering the said aspect, the family court found that she is not entitled for any maintenance and rejected the application, though the respondent has not filed any documents on his behalf, even after engaging the counsel. Therefore, this Court finds that the order of the Family Court dated 04.03.2026 is not on proper appreciation of the facts and is liable to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the Family Court with a specific direction to consider the guidelines of the Supreme Court and also the averments of the petition and the statement filed by the petitioner and to dispose of the

¶53