Dismissed¶84

Smt. Rajeshwari S H, v. Sri Varun R

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/20807/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; S.125 CrPC; wife denied maintenance where she has independent earnings (Rs.14,000/- p.m.) and Rs.6,000/- p.m. already paid; enhancement of child's Rs.10,000/- p.m. interim maintenance refused; maintenance payable from date of order not date of application; educational expenses Rs.98,650/- (AY 2025-26) not directed, husband paid first installment; Family Court Bengaluru Crl.Misc.No.339/2023; S.23 DV Act interim maintenance; Articles 226/227; NC: 2026:KHC:8465.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court rightly held that the wife is not entitled to interim maintenance: she disclosed earnings of Rs.14,000/- per month as a computer teacher, the husband's stated income is Rs.45,000/- per month, and the petitioners are already receiving Rs.6,000/- per month under the orders in Crl.Misc.No.113/2023 of the JMFC (TC-III), Bengaluru.

Smt. Rajeshwari S H, Vs Sri Varun R — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶84

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's rejection of interim maintenance pendente lite to the wife was improper. +3 more

¶55

Court's answer

¶70

Ratio / Principle

There are no grounds for enhancement of the interim maintenance granted to the child, since the wife and child already receive Rs.6,000/- per month plus Rs.10,000/- per month for the child, the petitioners produced no substantive proof of the husband's assets, and his stated income is Rs.45,000/- per month.

¶71

Key takeaways

The Family Court rightly held that the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the child is payable from the date of the order, because the respondent was already paying Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of the order on I.A.No.III.ratio¶73
There are no grounds to direct the respondent to bear the child's educational expenses of Rs.98,650/-, as the respondent paid the first installment to the school and undertook to bear the educational expenses for the rest of the academic year 2025-26.ratio¶79
Viewed from any angle, there are no grounds to interfere with the order rendered by the Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, 11.02.2026) dismissed two writ petitions under Articles 226/227 filed by a wife and her minor daughter against orders of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.339/2023 under S.125 CrPC: (i) rejection of the wife's claim for interim maintenance upheld, since she earns Rs.14,000/- per month as a computer teacher, the husband's stated income is Rs.45,000/- per month, and Rs.6,000/- per month was already being received under orders in Crl.Misc.No.113/2023 (JMFC TC-III, Bengaluru); (ii) refusal to enhance the child's interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month upheld, no substantive proof of the husband's assets having been produced; (iii) payment of maintenance from the date of order rather than the date of application upheld, as Rs.6,000/- per month was already being paid when I.A.No.III was decided; and (iv) the prayer to direct the husband to bear the child's educational expenses of Rs.98,650/- for academic year 2025-26 rejected, he having paid the first installment and undertaken to bear the expenses for the rest of the year. Both writ petitions dismissed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20807 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 20636 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶10

IN WP No. 20807/2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. RAJESHWARI S.H, W/O VARUN R D/O LATE. SURYAKANTHU HIRKE AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 819, 14TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, MEI LAYOUT, HESSARGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶13

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN

¶14

by AASEEFA 2. BABY. HIRANMAYI V PARVEEN D/O VARUN R, Location: HIGH SEX: FEMALE COURT OF AGED 4 YEARS. KARNATAKA SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO. 1

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SANTOSH RAJ URS B.Y, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

SRI. VARUN R, S/O G. RUDRAMANI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 106, 5TH CROSS, SHANTAPPA BUILDING, BASAVANGUDI, SHIVMOGGA - 577 202

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SMT. KSHAMA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SONATAI G. VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22-05-2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VI ADDI PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 125 OF CRPC IN IA NO. VII IN CRI MISC NO. 339/2023, AS PER THE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶25

IN WP NO. 20636/2025

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SMT. RAJESHWARI S.H, W/O VARUN R, D/O LATE SURYAKANTHU HIRKE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 819, 14TH CROSS, 17TH MAIN, MEI LAYOUT, HESSARGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560 073.

¶28

BABY. HIRANMAYI V

¶29

D/O VARUN R, SEX: FEMALE

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

AGED 4 YEARS. SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER NO. 1

¶34

...PETITIONERS

¶35

(BY SRI. SANTOSH RAJ URS B.Y, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

SRI. VARUN R S/O G. RUDRAMANI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 106, 5TH CROSS, SHANTAPPA BUILDING, BASAVANAGUDI, SHIVMOGGA – 577 202.

¶38

...RESPONDENT

¶39

(BY SMT. KSHAMA, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SONATAI G. VAKKUND, ADVOCATE)

¶40

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT IN THE MODIFYING THE QUANTUM OF THE MAINTENANCE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15-10-2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE VI ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 125 OF CRPC IN IA NO. III IN CRL MISC NO. 339/2023 AS PER THE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶41

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

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

ORAL ORDER

¶47

Heard Sri.Santosh Raj Urs.B.Y learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.Kshama who represents

¶48

Sri.Vakkund Sonatai Ganapatrao learned counsel for the respondent in both the writ petitions.

¶49

W.P.No.20636/2025 is filed seeking the Court to interfere and to modify the order that is rendered by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in Crl.Misc.No.339/2023 dated 15.10.2024. WP No.20807/2025 is filed seeking the Court to quash the order that is rendered by the same Court in the same case however on I.A.No.VII Dated 22.05.2025.

¶50

The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus, first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the daughter of respondent.

¶51

Wife and daughter initially filed I.A.No.III seeking interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month to them and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses. Family Court

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

disposed of the said interlocutory application rejecting the claim of the wife for interim maintenance, granting a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the child towards interim maintenance, giving a direction to respondent to pay the same from the date of order. Wife and child thereafter filed I.A.No.VII seeking the Court to direct respondent/ husband to pay the educational expenses of the child for the academic year 2025-26 which comes to Rs.98,650/-. Family Court dismissed the said interlocutory application.

¶55

Arguing on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners i.e. wife and child submits that these two writ petitions were filed mainly on three grounds. Firstly, rejection of maintenance pendente lite to the wife is improper. Secondly, interim maintenance granted in favour of the child is grossly low. Thirdly, maintenance has to be granted from the date of filing of the petition seeking interim maintenance but the Family Court granted interim maintenance from the date of order which is unjustifiable.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent has got huge property and earns a lot. On the other hand, petitioners have no source of earnings. It is the responsibility of husband to maintain his wife and child. The amount granted towards interim maintenance in favour of the child is not sufficient. Also wife is unable to maintain herself. Thus the order rendered on I.A.No.III is required to be modified. Further, child needs good and proper education and mother is unable to bear the educational expenses and therefore, I.A.No.VII was filed seeking a direction to respondent/husband to bear the educational expenses. But the said interlocutory application was dismissed and thus by allowing the said interlocutory application, respondent/husband has to be ordered to bear the educational expenses.

¶59

Learned counsel who represents respondent/

¶60

husband on the other hand submits that wife initiated several proceedings against the husband. She filed an application under Section 23 of the Protection of Women

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

from Domestic Violence Act seeking interim maintenance and the Court granted a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to her towards interim maintenance payable by respondent herein. Learned counsel also submits that wife again filed another application seeking interim maintenance and the said application was allowed directing respondent/husband to pay Rs.6,000/- per month pendente lite . Learned counsel in support of his submission brought to the notice of this Court the orders rendered in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.113/2023 dated 02.09.2023 and 18.09.2024 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (TC-III) Bengaluru. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise respondent was paying Rs.5,000/- per month voluntarily to his wife and the said fact is not in dispute. Having perceived these facts, Family Court granted interim maintenance from the date of order in favour of the child and hence, that order needs no interference. Learned counsel also submits that wife is an employee and thus, she is capable of maintaining herself. That apart, wife

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

fabricated the bank statements and filed them before the Family Court and husband filed an interlocutory application seeking the Court to observe the said fact and to take a decision with regard to the entitlement of wife and child for maintenance. Learned counsel ultimately submits that both the writ petitions are not maintainable.

¶67

So far as claim of maintenance by wife is concerned, in the statement of assets and liabilities filed by her she has disclosed that she is working as computer teacher at Blossom School, Bengaluru and earns Rs.14,000/- per month. The version of husband as per his statement of assets and liabilities that he is working as HRGS Advisor and he earns Rs.45,000/- per month. There is no denial of the fact that petitioners are receiving Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance as per the order rendered by the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class (TC-III) Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.113/2023. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Family Court

¶68

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

has rightly held that wife is not entitled for interim maintenance.

¶71

Coming to the aspect of enhancement of maintenance, as earlier indicated through the orders rendered referred supra wife and child are already receiving Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from that through the order of the Family Court, the child is granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. Having considered the fact that petitioners have not produced any substantive proof with regard to the assets of respondent/husband and as per his version he is earning Rs.45,000/- per month, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds for further enhancement.

¶72

Coming to the last aspect which is in respect of

¶73

date from which maintenance is required to be paid, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondent, as respondent is paying Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of orders on I.A.No.III, the Family Court rightly held that interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the child

¶74

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:8465 WP No. 20807 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20636 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

is required to be paid from the date of order. Thus, viewed

¶77

from any angle, there are no grounds to interfere with the order that is rendered by the Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III.

¶78

So far as the relief claimed in

¶79

W.P.No.20807/2025 i.e., to quash order that is rendered on I.A.No.VII, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to direct respondent to bear the educational expenses of a sum of Rs.98,650/-, as during the course of submission, learned counsel for the respondent contended that first installment to be paid to the school authorities was already paid by respondent and he undertaken to bear the educational expenses for the rest of the academic year 2025-26. Thus, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the following:

¶80