Sri.G.J.Manohar v. Smt.Swetha S

Karnataka HC4 Feb 2026WP/2497/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance reduction in favour of wife; writ petition under Article 227 (GM-FC) against Family Court, Bengaluru order on I.A.No.II in Crl.Misc.No.498/2021 dated 23.01.2023; husband's claimed income ₹10,500/- p.m. versus alleged supermarket earnings of ₹1,00,000/- p.m.; EMI capacity of ₹25,000/- taken as indicator of means; tax invoice dated 12.11.2022 showing business continuity despite claimed closure; maintenance reduced from ₹10,000/- to ₹8,000/- per month; arrears to be cleared within three months; G.J. Manohar v. Swetha S.; WP No.2497 of 2025; NC: 2026:KHC:6531.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: impugned order modified; interim maintenance payable by the petitioner to the respondent reduced from ₹10,000/- to ₹8,000/- per month; petitioner directed to clear all arrears within three months. ¶¶38

Sri.G.J.Manohar Vs Smt.Swetha S — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:6531 WP No. 2497 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.2497 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.G.J.MANOHAR, S/O LATE JAGADEESHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEW IB BACK SIDE, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, GUBBI TOWN, TUMKURU-572103.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.MANJULA D., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT.SWETHA S., D/O. LATE SHIVAGANGAIAH, W/O. MANOHARA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/A MANIFEST FORTUNE APARTMENT, 'A' BLOCK S3, 8TH A CROSS, THIMMAKKA LAYAOUT

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6531 WP No. 2497 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,

¶18

R.T. NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560032

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. PRABHULINGA MURTHY B. R., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 23.01.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO. 498/2021 IN RESPECT OF I.A.NO.2 PASSED BY THE V ADDL PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND MODIFY THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT OF RS.10,0000/- TO RS.3000/- TO THE RESPONDENT A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-D.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6531 WP No. 2497 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard Sri.Pavan Kumar who represents Smt.Manjula D., learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri. Prabhulinga Murthy B.R., learned counsel on record for the respondent.

¶28

Husband who was directed to pay his wife a sum of ₹10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance

¶29

by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, through orders on I.A.No.II in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.498/2021 dated 23.01.2023 filed the present writ petition. He seeks to quash the impugned order.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner looked after the respondent well. Both are graduates. Father of the petitioner met with an accident recently and is bed ridden. The petitioner is taking care of his father. Petitioner got a job recently and he is earning around ₹10,500/- per month. The tribunal directed the petitioner to pay exorbitant sum of ₹10,000/- as

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6531 WP No. 2497 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

maintenance which he cannot pay and therefore this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel also states that indeed respondent left the matrimonial home without any justifiable reason and thus she is not entitled for any maintenance.

¶34

On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner has got huge property and is doing business. Therefore, he can pay a sum of ₹10,000/- as ordered by the tribunal towards maintenance of the respondent.

¶35

As per the version of the respondent, petitioner earns more than ₹1,00,000/- per month by running a super market by name 'Sumukha Super Market', which is located at Gubbi Town. The contention of the petitioner is that he closed the said business due to loss. Family Court taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner obtained loan of ₹4,20,000/- from his credit card, ₹1,25,000/- gold loan, ₹1,00,000 as O.D. from Union

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6531 WP No. 2497 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Bank and holding that when he is capable to pay more than ₹25,000/- E.M.I., he is also capable to pay maintenance to his wife, directed him to pay a sum of ₹10,000/- towards maintenance per month. The Court also observed that though the petitioner has disclosed that he closed his business, the tax invoice dated 12.11.2022 reveals that the business continues. There is no material on record to show that the respondent has got her own source of earnings. Equally, there is no convincing material with regard to the earnings of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the sum awarded towards interim maintenance i.e. ₹10,000/- is required to be reduced to ₹8,000/- per month. As the petitioner herein failed to establish that respondent has got her own source of earnings, his request to set aside the impugned order cannot be appreciated. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following:

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6531 WP No. 2497 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The order that is rendered by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on IA No.II in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.498/2021 dated 23.01.2023 is modified.

¶43

ii. The amount ordered towards interim maintenance to be payable by the petitioner herein to the respondent is reduced from ₹10,000/- to ₹8,000/- per month.

¶44

iii. Petitioner is directed to clear all the arrears within a period of three months.

¶45

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶46

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

Sri.G.J.Manohar v. Smt.Swetha S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.G.J.Manohar v. Smt.Swetha S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G M Yogsh Gowda Vs Future General India Insurance Company Limited

R M Ananda Vs Miss Prabhavathi

Mrs. Rashmi. M. S. Vs Mr. Suprith Kolli

Smt. Latha Vs Sri. Gangadhar Kotiyavar

Kalavathi C K Vs Rangappa

Sri Manjunath D Vs Smt Monica H D