Mrs Ragalapally Krishnaveni Vs Mr Doddi Sunil Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mrs Ragalapally Krishnaveni Vs Mr Doddi Sunil Kumar — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim maintenance payable by the respondent to petitioner No.2 (minor child) enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month from 12.10.2023 until further orders of the Family Court, Bengaluru; the findings rejecting petitioner No.1/wife's claim for interim maintenance confirmed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court to petitioner No.2, the minor child, is grossly inadequate and should be enhanced. +1 more

Court's answer

Having considered the financial status of the respondent/father, this Court held that he can at least spend one-fifth (1/5th) of his earnings towards the welfare of his child.

Ratio / Principle

On that basis the Court found it desirable to allow the writ petition to that extent, modify the impugned order, and direct the respondent to pay petitioner No.2 (his child) interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of application (12.10.2023) until further orders of the Family Court, Bengaluru.

Key takeaways

So far as petitioner No.1/wife's claim for interim maintenance is concerned, the findings in the impugned order (rejecting her claim) are confirmed.ratio¶(iii)
The Court reasoned that earning fathers and mothers are required to share equal responsibility where their earnings are similar, but in this case petitioner No.1/mother bears the additional responsibility of taking care of the child and attending to all her requirements.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution (GM-FC) by a wife and her minor child (aged about four years, represented by the mother) against the order dated 28.04.2025 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in Crl.Misc.No.104/2023, which rejected the wife's claim for interim maintenance and awarded the child only Rs.10,000/- per month. Financial position as discussed by the Family Court and noted by the High Court: the wife, a B.Tech (Electronics and Communications Engineering) graduate working as Test Specialist in IBM with gross salary of Rs.1,68,166/- per month, earns more than the respondent-husband (B.Sc. in Statistics; gross salary Rs.1,19,822/- per month). The High Court (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha) reasoned that earning parents are required to share equal responsibility where their earnings are similar, but the mother here bears the additional responsibility of taking care of the child, and that the father can devote at least one-fifth of his earnings to the child's welfare. The impugned order was modified: the child's interim maintenance was enhanced to ₹20,000/- per month from the date of application (12.10.2023) until further orders of the Family Court, Bengaluru, while the findings rejecting the wife's claim were confirmed. Disposition: writ petition disposed of, partly allowed.

NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.23204 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

MRS RAGALAPALLY KRISHNAVENI, W/O MR DOODI SUNIL KUMAR, D/O MR R CHANDRA SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O 183, SHREENIVASA NILAYA, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, 18TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, NEAR CANARA BANK, BENGALURU - 560076

ALSO AT: 19 - 12 - 477 BAIRAGIOATTEDA, TIRUPATI, ANDHRA PRADSH - 517501.

Digitally signed 2. MS DOODI DHATHRIKA, by AASEEFA D/O MR DOODI SUNIL KUMAR, PARVEEN AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, Location: HIGH R/O NO 183, SHREENIVASA NILAYA, COURT OF 2^ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, KARNATAKA 18TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, NEAR CANARA BANK, BENGALURU - 560076 REPRESENTED BY PETITONER NO. 1

…PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. SONIA RAJESH, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

HC-KAR

AND:

MR. DODDI SUNIL KUMAR, S/O MR DOODI SRINVIASALU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O 183, SHREENIVASA NILAYA, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAUYOUT 18^TH MAIN, 1ST PHASE, NEAR CANARA BANK, BENGALURU - 560076.

ALSO AT: NO. 5-429-2-9-1, DEVALAM STREET, MADANAPALLI, ANDHRA PRADESH - 517325

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. AISHWARYA REKULGI, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO ALTER / MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BANGALORE IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO. 104/2023 IN AWARDING MEAGER MONTHLY INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF RS.10,000/- TO PETITIONER NO.2 AND RS.30,000/- TOWARDS LITIGATION EXPENSES AND TO ENHANCE THE INTERIM MONTHLY MAINTENANCE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONERS, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Ms.Sonia Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.Aishwarya Rekulgi, learned counsel for respondent.

Being aggrieved by the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in Crl.Misc.No.104/2023 dated 28.04.2025, this writ petition is filed.

First petitioner being the wife, second petitioner being the minor child of the respondent filed I.A.No.III in Crl.Misc.No.104/2023 seeking a direction to the respondent to pay them interim maintenance of Rs.1,07,531/- per month, besides a sum of Rs.1,50,000/towards litigation expenses. Family Court gave a finding that petitioner No.1/wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance. However, the Court directed the respondent to pay petitioner No.2/child a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

HC-KAR

The version of first petitioner is that she as wife

is entitled for interim maintenance from respondent/husband. The version of second petitioner child is that the maintenance granted is grossly low. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that respondent is earning around Rs.1,25,000/- per month and he holds vast property. Petitioner No.2 is aged around four years and she is being looked after by petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.1 is incurring huge expenditure for the nourishment of petitioner No.2 and for providing good education. But, Family Court without taking into consideration the necessities of the petitioners, rejected the claim of petitioner No.1 and granted very meagre sum as interim maintenance to petitioner No.2. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the writ petition and thereby direct the respondent to pay the petitioners the sum claimed towards interim maintenance.

Vehemently opposing the submission thus

made, learned counsel for respondent submits that

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

HC-KAR

petitioner No.1 is incurring not more than Rs.2,000/- per month for the education of the child. Petitioner No.1 is also an employee and she earns more than the respondent. Father of the respondent is suffering from ill health and therefore respondent is under obligation to spend huge amount for the treatment of his father. Family Court rightly rejected the claim of petitioner No.1. Respondent is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as ordered by the Family Court for the maintenance of the child. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

The Family Court discussed at length with

regard to the financial status of both parties i.e. the first petitioner and the respondent. When petitioner No.1 is a B.Tech graduate in Electronics and Communications Engineering, respondent holds a B.Sc. degree in Statistics. While petitioner No.1 works as Test Specialist in IBM and

gets gross salary of Rs.1,68,166/- per month, respondent earns gross salary of Rs.1,19,822/- per month. Thus, it is

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

HC-KAR

clear that the salary of first petitioner is more than the salary of the respondent.

So far as liabilities are concerned, though respondent contended that he borrowed Rs.10,00,000/towards personal loan, Rs.1,65,000/- through credit card and Rs.3,50,000/- as hand loan, for what purpose he secured that amount is not stated.

Learned counsel for respondent during the course of submission states that petitioners are residing at Tirupati, where the cost of living is less and the first petitioner is not incurring any sum more than Rs.2,000/for education of the child. A child of four years requires proper food and nourishment, proper medical facilities, comfortable transportation to school, school fee and other requirements including timely health check-up and recreation.

Undoubtedly father and mother who are earning are required to share equal responsibility where their

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

HC-KAR

earnings are similar. However, in the case on hand petitioner No.1/mother has got the additional responsibility to take care of the child and to attend her all requirements.

Having considered the financial status of respondent/father, this Court is of the view that he can at least spend 1/5^th of his earnings towards the welfare of his child. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to allow the writ petition to that extent, modify the impugned order and direct respondent to pay his child i.e. the second petitioner herein a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards interim maintenance.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following:

ORDER

(i) The order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:8432 WP No. 23204 of 2025

HC-KAR

No.III in Crl.Misc.No.104/2023 dated 28.04.2025 is modified.

(ii) Respondent is directed to pay Petitioner No.2, a sum of ₹20,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of application i.e. 12.10.2023 until further orders by the Family Court, Bengaluru.

(iii) So far as the claim of petitioner No.1/wife is concerned, the findings in impugned order are confirmed.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

NS,AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46