Dismissed¶71

Mahesh v. Suvarna

Writ Petition (GM-FC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – maintenance

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2026WP/20802/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintenance - educational expenses of major son (18 years, B.Tech student) - father held liable - Section 125(3) CrPC - Section 94 BNSS 2023 - Family Court Madikeri, Crl. M.C. No.71 of 2024 - Article 227 writ dismissed - Rs.1,32,495 college fee instalment - KSRTC employee father - Urvashi Aggarwal (Delhi HC) and Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat (Bombay HC) relied on; Smt. Boby Das (Gauhati HC) and Chandrashekar v. Swapnil (2021) 12 SCC 624 referred.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the impugned Family Court order directing payment of Rs.1,32,495 towards educational fee was confirmed. ¶71

Mahesh Vs Suvarna — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the impugned Family Court order directing payment of Rs.1,32,495 towards educational fee was confirmed.

¶71

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner-husband is liable to pay maintenance towards the educational expenses of his major son (respondent No.2, aged about 18 years, studying B.Tech) under Section 125(1)(C) of CrPC. +1 more

¶65

Court's answer

Educational expenses are basic expenses to be incurred by the parents for the well-being and growth of their child; merely because the son has attained the age of majority he cannot become financially independent, and it is for the parents to incur his educational expenses.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

The argument of the petitioner that he is not liable to pay the educational expenses of his major son under Section 125(1)(C) CrPC cannot be accepted.

¶65

Key takeaways

There are no merits in the writ petition; the petition is dismissed and the impugned order passed by the Family Court is confirmed.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-FC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - maintenance - educational expenses of a major son. The petitioner-father (a KSRTC employee at Madikeri) challenged the order dated 14.05.2025 in Crl. M.C. No.71 of 2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madikeri, in proceedings initiated by the respondent-wife under Section 125(3) CrPC (with an application under Section 94 of BNSS, 2023), directing him to pay Rs.1,32,495 towards the second instalment of the college fee of respondent No.2, born 13.06.2006, studying B.Tech at Alliance College. Held: educational expenses are basic expenses to be incurred by the parents for the well-being and growth of the child in future; merely because the son has attained the age of majority he cannot become financially independent, and it is for the parents to incur his educational expenses; the contention that the father is not liable to pay maintenance towards the educational expenses of his major son under Section 125(1)(C) CrPC cannot be accepted. Petition dismissed, confirming the impugned order. The court considered the Delhi High Court decision in Urvashi Aggarwal and the Bombay High Court decision in Jayvardhan Sinh Chapotkat cited by the respondent-wife, and the Gauhati High Court decision in Smt. Boby Das (with reference to Chandrashekar v. Swapnil, (2021) 12 SCC 624) cited by the petitioner.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20802 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MAHESH S/O. BASANNA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OPPOSITE TO TAX OFFICE TEMPLE ROAD, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT MAHESH (TC) BADGE NO. 1178, K.S.R.T.C MADIKERI DEPO, MADIKERI KODAGU DISTRICT PIN-571201 (BY SRI. G. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY., ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SUVARNA W/O. MAHESH D/O. SANGANNA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶15

PRUTHIVIRAJ M S/O MAHESH AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS

¶16

BOTHE ARE RESIDING AT OPPOSITE TO TAX OFFICE TEMPLE ROAD, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT PIN-571 201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶22

(BY MR. ASHWIN JOYSTON KUTINHA., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO WRIT OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02-05-2025 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 94 OF BNSS, 2023 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KODAGU- MADIKERI COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A AND CONSEQUENTLY, APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 94 OF THE BNSS, 2023 MAY BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED THEREIN COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 07.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶25

CAV ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed against the order dated 14.05.2025

¶27

passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madikeri, in Crl. M.C. No.71 of 2024 in which the petitioner-husband is directed to pay Rs.1,32,495 towards educational fee of 2nd instalment to the College Authorities.

¶28

2. The petitioner/husband stated that his married respondent No.1 was performed on 08.05.1997 and respondent No.2 was born on 13.06.2006. The respondent-wife filed Crl. Misc. No.71 of 2024 under Section 125(3) of CrPC. Respondent

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶32

No.2 has attained majority. He further stated that in 2014 respondent No.1 insisted him to furnish salary certificates. As such, he gave ATM card of Canara Bank, Madikeri to which the salary was credited by the department. Immediately after credit to the account, respondent No.1-wife used to withdraw the entire salary from the account. It is also stated that the petitioner was residing in staff quarters of KSRTC, Madikeri, and further stated that from the year 2022, salary was credited to SBI. He was depositing Rs.20,000/- to Canara Bank account and respondent No.1 used to withdraw the said amount. Therefore, it cannot be said that he has refused to maintain respondent No.1 and 2. The petitioner further contended that his son Pruthviraj is studying in B. Tech at Alliance College and Rs.1,32,495/- is to be paid before 15.05.2025 as college fee installment. Since respondent No.2 is major son and is not suffering from any physical or mental abnormality or injury, he is not entitled to claim maintenance. The petitioner-husband further stated that he will retire in next 4 years and he would get pension of Rs.500/- per month only. Respondent No.2 will never take care of him during his retirement life. Hence, it is

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶34

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶37

requested to quash the order dated 02.05.2025 and 14.05.2025.

¶38

3. Statement of objection was filed by the petitionerhusband before the Family Court under Annexure-G stating that the petition filed by the respondent-wife is opposed to Section 125 (3) of CrPC. He further stated as follows:

¶39

“5. The petitioner No.2 was given education and necessities by the respondent till he attained majority, even though the Right to Education mandates to give education from 6 years to 14 years. The able bodied, major and secondary education completed petitioner NO.2 is eligible to work and earn a decent living for himself. There is no right in favour of the major son for any maintenance or support from a father in India, just because the father is earning. There is also no social or moral obligation recognised in any statutes, personal law, customs or social or religious practice for a father in India to provide maintenance or support to a major able-bodied son, because the father is earning.”

¶40

9. The petitioner No.2 can avail any of the many scholarships or bank finance without providing collateral for pursuing education. The petitioner No.2 can pursue his higher education by availing bank finance, which becomes repayable 6 month after completing his degree or after securing a job whichever happens first. The petitioner No.2 has not produced any material to show he had applied for bank finance and was denied the bank finance. The Government of India interest subsidy is also available on education

¶41

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶44

loan, which makes the education loan very cheap.”

¶45

4. The petitioner has relied upon the citation of Gauhati

¶46

High Court in the case of Smt. Boby Das Vs. Sri Kantiram Das decided in the case of Crl. Rev.P. No.234 of 2025 dated 06.04.2026, Wherein it is held that the child is entitled for maintenance till he/she attains the age of majority and that such maintenance can be granted even after attainment of majority when the child not being a married daughter, by reason or any physical or mental abnormality or injury, unable to maintain itself. In the said case, it is further held that the Apex Court in Chandrashekar Vs.Swapnil and another reported in (2021)12 SCC 624 had directed payment of maintenance beyond the age of majority in exercise of its powers under section 142 of the Constitution of India and the High Court has no such powers.

¶47

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-wife has relied upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Urvashi Aggarwal and others Vs. Inderpaul Aggarwal decided in

¶48

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶51

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶52

Crl.Rev.P. No.549 of 2018 and Crl. M.A. No.11791 of 2018

¶53

dated 14.06.2021 wherein it is held as under:

¶54

“12. XXX. I t cannot be said that the obligation of a father would come to an end when his son reaches 18 years of age and the entire burden would fall only on the mother. The amount earned by the mother has to be spent on her and on her children without any contribution by the father because the son has attained majority. The Court cannot shut its eyes to the rising cost of living. It is not reasonable to expect that the mother alone would bear the entire burden for herself and for the son with the small amount of maintenance given by the respondent herein.”

¶55

6. The Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Jayvardhan Sinh

¶56

Chapotkat Vs. Ajayveer Chapotkat decided in Civil Writ

¶57

Petition No.2117 of 2012 dated 08.04.2014, wherein it is held as follows:

¶58

“20. XXX the respondent is well placed financially, it would be incumbent upon him to bear educational expenses of his son till he is able to earn his own living or till he completes his education. This is in fact, a concession to a major son”

¶59

16. XXX. In the given facts of case, a major son of the well-educated and economically sound parents can claim educational expenses from his father or mother

¶60

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶63

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶64

irrespective of the fact the he has attained majority. It is not maintenance in strict sense as contemplated under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or maintenance as contemplated under Section under Hindu Marriage Act.”

¶65

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that he is not liable to pay maintenance to his major son towards educational expenses as per Section 125(1)(C) of CrPC. He further argued that the citations relied upon by the respondent-wife are also discussed in the citation filed by him. Educational expenses are the basic expenses to be incurred by the parents for the well-being and growth of their child in future. Merely, because, the son has attained the age of majority, he cannot become financially independent and it is for the parents to incur his educational expenses. After getting any qualification, he can get employment and stand on his own legs. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay educational expenses of the child cannot be accepted.

¶66

8. It is stated by the respondent-wife that the child is already in third year and she is paying educational expenses by

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:36259 WP No. 20802 of 2025

¶68

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

CNR: KAHC010448462025

¶71

borrowing amount from her known people. Therefore, considering all the above aspects, this Court finds that there are no merits in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the Family

¶72

Court.

¶73

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶74

CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Mahesh v. Suvarna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh v. Suvarna

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

The Manager Vs Manjushetti @ Manju

T S Siddaraju Vs S Srinivas

Smt K R Geetha Vs H C Nagabhushan

Sri S Ramesh Vs Smt Jyothi Ramesh

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. v. Reddamma

Smt. Vidyasheree S L Vs Sri Shrikrishna