Dismissed¶50

Mrs. Shalini D.S. v. Mr. Theertha

Interim maintenance – minor child

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2026WP/18936/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru, WP No. 18936 of 2023 (GM-FC), decided 10-02-2026 by Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha. Challenge under Article 227 to the Family Court's award of Rs. 5,000/- per month interim maintenance to a minor child in M.C.No.1971/2019, seeking enhancement to Rs. 30,000/- per month. Held: a mother earning more than the father must share the responsibility of the child's welfare; the Rs. 5,000/- per month award upheld; writ petition dismissed with a direction to the respondent to clear arrears within three months.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; the writ petition is dismissed and the respondent is directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within three months. ¶50

Mrs. Shalini D.S. Vs Mr. Theertha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; the writ petition is dismissed and the respondent is directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within three months.

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's order on I.A.No.IV in M.C.No.1971/2019 awarding interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- per month to the minor child is liable to be quashed and the maintenance enhanced, given the contention that the respondent-father earns substantially more than what was considered.

¶34

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity in the decision taken by the Family Court directing the respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor child.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

Where the mother is equally earning and earns more than the father, both parents have to share the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the child; the sole responsibility does not vest on the father.

¶43

Key takeaways

Even taking the contention that the respondent earns around Rs. 80,000/- per month, since the petitioner is also earning the same amount per month, the maintenance awarded to the child payable by the father cannot be held to be on the lower side.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim maintenance — minor child — Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Family Court (Bengaluru) order dated 30.06.2023 on I.A.No.4 in M.C.No.1971/2019 awarding Rs. 5,000/- per month interim maintenance to the minor child — Petitioner-wife found by the Family Court to be earning more than Rs. 10,00,000/- per year while the respondent-husband's income is Rs. 26,500/- — Held: where the mother is equally earning and earns more than the father, both parents must share the responsibility of looking after the child's welfare; even if the father earns Rs. 80,000/- per month, the award cannot be said to be on the lower side since the mother earns a similar amount — No infirmity in the Family Court's decision — Writ petition dismissed — Respondent to clear all arrears within three months.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:7953 WP No. 18936 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.18936 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. SHALINI D.S., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O MR. THEERTHA, D/O SRI. D.G.SRINIVASA, NO. 8/2, PARIMALA NAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MR. THEERTHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. GOPALSHETTY, WORKING AT HAL, EMPLOYEE ID - 74990-70 DEPT. AND PB NO. 9314/74990-70,

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7953 WP No. 18936 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

HST (CNC MACHINIST), PRITHVI CNC SHOP, AEROSPACE DIVISION, HAL, BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. BHARATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 30.06.2023 PASSED BY THE HONBLE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU ON I.A.NO.4 IN M.C.NO.1971/2019, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY IN ENTIRETY ALLOW THE IA 4 FILED THEREIN BY THE PETITIONER PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶23

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:7953 WP No. 18936 of 2023

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri.Tumbigi Prabhugouda

¶28

Basavantarayagouda, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Bharath who represents Sri.P.B.Raju, learned counsel on record for respondent.

¶29

Seeking the Court to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.IV in M.C.No.1971/2019 dated 30.06.2023, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

The petitioner herein who is the wife of the respondent filed three Interlocutory Applications i.e. I.A. Nos.III to V seeking different reliefs. I.A.No.III is filed seeking the Court to issue direction to the respondent to add the name of the minor child Master Jashwanth Shetty in the Health Card. I.A.No.IV is filed seeking the Court to grant interim maintenance of ₹30,000/- per month to minor child apart from ₹30,000 towards litigation expenses. I.A.No.V came to be filed seeking the Court to

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:7953 WP No. 18936 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

issue directions to the respondent to pay ₹40,000/towards school fee of the said child. The petitioner challenged the order on I.A.No.IV through this writ petition.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is earning a lot and in fact respondent/father has got sole responsibility to maintain his child. The Family Court granted meager sum of ₹5,000/- towards interim maintenance which is unjustifiable. Learned counsel thereby seeks for enhancement.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent states that petitioner is earning more than the respondent. Respondent is willing to lead his life along with the petitioner and the child, but the petitioner is not coming forward.

¶36

Family Court at para 12 of the impugned order

¶37

made a clear mention that on perusal of affidavits of assets and liabilities submitted by both parties and the

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7953 WP No. 18936 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

documents, it is found that petitioner is earning more than ₹10,00,000/- per year and the income of the respondent is ₹26,500/-. Having perused the said order, the Family Court directed respondent herein to pay a petitioner a sum of ₹5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the minor

¶41

child. This Court therefore does not find any infirmity in the decision taken by the Family Court.

¶42

Though learned counsel for the petitioner states

¶43

that the sole responsibility vests on the father to look after the child, when the mother is equally earning and where she earns more than the father, both have to share the responsibility of looking after the welfare of the child.

¶44

Likewise though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is earning around ₹80,000/- per month, even if it is taken into consideration, as the petitioner is also earning the same amount per month, the amount awarded as maintenance to the child

¶45