Dismissed¶43

Smt Bharathi M v. Sri Gangadhara Gowda H P

Karnataka HC3 Jun 2026WP/31152/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: interim maintenance enhancement; Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act; IA No.II in MC No.866/2020; II Addl. Prl. Judge Family Court Bangalore; Article 227 writ petition (GM-FC); Rs.6,000/- per month fixed against Rs.50,000/- per month claim; petitioner employed as Receptionist earning Rs.10,000/- per month; daughter major and married; both sons majors; respondent unemployed; poultry farm income unproved; no grounds to interfere; writ petition dismissed. Neutral citation: NC: 2026:KHC:26243.

What did the court decide?

Having regard to the submission that trial in MC No.866/2020 is in progress, the Court did not find any grounds whatsoever to interfere with the findings in the impugned order and considered it desirable to dismiss the writ petition. ¶42

Smt Bharathi M Vs Sri Gangadhara Gowda H P — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month fixed by the Family Court on IA No.II in MC No.866/2020 should be modified/enhanced as prayed by the petitioner (who had claimed Rs.50,000/- per month).

¶22

Court's answer

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded that there was no denial that the daughter had attained majority and was married, and likewise that both sons had attained the age of majority, removing the petitioner's pleaded obligation to maintain them.

¶38

Key takeaways

No material had been produced by the petitioner before the Family Court to show that the respondent maintains a poultry farm, undermining the plea that he earns a huge amount.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single-judge oral order (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha) of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru dismissing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India (GM-FC) filed by a wife seeking modification of the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by the II Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bangalore on IA No.II in MC No.866/2020 — an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby the respondent-husband was directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month for the petitioner and the children, against her claim of Rs.50,000/- per month. Petitioner's counsel contended the respondent ran a poultry farm earning a huge amount and that she had to maintain three children; respondent's counsel countered that the petitioner was herself an employee, that he was unemployed with no source of earnings, and that the daughter had attained majority and been married while both sons were also majors. Recording that there was no denial of the daughter's majority and marriage nor of the sons' majority, noting from the petitioner's asset affidavit that she works as a Receptionist at Vinayaka Hospital, Bengaluru earning Rs.10,000/- per month, observing that no material proved the poultry farm, and recording the joint submission that trial in MC No.866/2020 was in progress and nearing disposal, the Court found no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:26243 WP No. 31152 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.31152 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT BHARATHI M., W/O GANGADHARA GOWDA H.P. D/O MARAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO.3, 3RD CROSS, OPP GOVT SCHOOL ROAD, AVALAHALLI, BENGALURU ROAD, GOVT ELECTRIC FACTORY, BENGALURU-560026.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. GANGADHAR G.D., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN SRI GANGADHARA GOWDA H P Location: HIGH S/O LATE PAPANNA, COURT OF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, KARNATAKA C/O ANGADI BYRE GOWDA, R/O. HANHCIPURA VILLAGE, AMRUTHURU HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 111.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. HEGDE S. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:26243 WP No. 31152 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN M.C. NO. 866/2020 AND MODIFIED THE ORDER DATED 16/07/2024 ON IA NO. II AND GRANT MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED IN THE APPLICATION ANNEXURE-E.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri.Gangadhar.G.D, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Hegde.S.Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶22

Seeking the Court to modify the order that is rendered by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengauru on IA No.II in MC No.866/2020 dated 16.07.2024, this writ petition is filed.

¶23

The petitioner herein who is legally wedded wife

¶24

of the respondent filed IA No.II invoking Section 24 of the

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26243 WP No. 31152 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month from the respondent. The Family Court through the impugned order directed the respondent to pay petitioner a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of the petitioner and their children.

¶28

Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent runs a poultry farm and earns huge amount. Petitioner is under obligation to maintain three children i.e., one daughter and two sons born out of the lawful wedlock. As she was not in a position to eke out her livelihood and to maintain the children, she claimed maintenance. But Family Court directed respondent to pay meager sum towards interim maintenance and aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

¶30

submits that petitioner is also an employee. Respondent is

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:26243 WP No. 31152 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

unemployed. He has no source of earnings. That apart, daughter attained the age of majority and her marriage is also performed. Even both the sons attained the age of majority. Therefore, petitioner has no obligation either to maintain the daughter or the sons. Thus, there are no grounds for enhancement.

¶34

In the affidavit given disclosing assets and liabilities, the petitioner made a clear mention that she works at Vinayaka Hospital, Bengaluru as a Receptionist and earns Rs.10,000/- per month. There is no denial of the fact that daughter attained the age of majority and

¶35

she also got married. Likewise there is no denial of the fact that both the sons attained the age of majority. No material was produced by the petitioner before the Family Court to show that respondent maintains a poultry farm. Family Court taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances directed respondent to pay petitioner a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards interim maintenance for the maintenance of the petitioner and children.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:26243 WP No. 31152 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Both the learned counsel submits that trial in

¶40

MC No.866/2020 is in progress and the case will be disposed of very soon.

¶41

Having regard to the said submission made and

¶42

as this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to interfere with the findings given in the impugned order, this Court considers desirable to dismiss the writ petition.

¶43

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶44

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶45

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

Smt Bharathi M v. Sri Gangadhara Gowda H P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bharathi M v. Sri Gangadhara Gowda H P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sriraksha Vs Sri Harish R

Sri Mayur B N Vs Smt. Padmashree B L

Sri H Umashankar Vs Smt. Manjula B.R.

Sri Y G Rajesh Vs Smt. Ramya M

Sri Sankeerthan S B Vs Smt Priyanka

Sri.Thyagarajan Vs Smt. Vijayalakshmi