Dismissed¶¶58

Nandini a G v. Kiran Kumar B H

Interim maintenance – Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act

Karnataka HC9 Jun 2026WP/31485/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (GM-FC), Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, 09.06.2026 — interim maintenance under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, M.C.No.96/2024, Family Court Hassan — Rs.20,000/- per month upheld as justifiable; enhancement to Rs.40,000/- refused; both W.P.No.27223/2025 (husband) and W.P.No.31485/2025 (wife) dismissed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

The Family Court discussed each aspect of the case and the merits of the claim; this Court finds no infirmity in its observations or conclusion, and the sum of Rs.20,000/- per month granted towards interim maintenance is justifiable; hence the impugned order cannot be set aside as sought by the husband. ¶¶54

Nandini a G Vs Kiran Kumar B H — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:27471 WP No. 27223 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31485 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 27223 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 31485 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶9

IN WP NO. 27223/2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶12

KIRAN KUMAR B H S/O METI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT B.D.A. QUARTERS M.K.ROAD OPP KIRLOSKAR GATE TALUK PANCHAYATH HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601 AND ALSO AT 250/1 NEAR S.S.K CHOWTRY RIVER ROAD, HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI M.M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

NANDINI A G W/O KIRAN KUMAR B H AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT B.D.A. QUARTERS M.K. ROAD OPP KIRLOSKAR GATE TALUK PANCHAYATH HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601 PRESENTLY R/AT E.K.VENUKUMARA

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27471 WP No. 27223 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31485 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SUKHA NILAYA SALAGAME ROAD WARD NO 16 JAYANAGARA HASSAN DISTRICT 573201.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 23.06.2025 PASSED IN M.C. NO.96/2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, 1ST ADDL. FAMILY COURT, AT HASSAN VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶21

IN WP NO. 31485/2025

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

NANDINI A G W/O KIRAN KUMAR B H AGE ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT B.D.A. QUARTERS M.K. ROAD OPP KIRLOSKAR GATE TALUK PANCHAYATH HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601 PRESENTLY R/AT E.K.VENUKUMARA SUKHA NILAYA SALAGAME ROAD WARD NO 16 JAYANAGARA HASSAN DISTRICT 573201.

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR P PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

KIRAN KUMAR B H S/O METI HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT B.D.A. QUARTERS M.K.ROAD OPP KIRLOSKAR GATE TALUK PANCHAYATH HARIHARA DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577601

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27471 WP No. 27223 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31485 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

AND ALSO AT 250/1 NEAR S.S.K CHOWTRY RIVER ROAD, HARIHARA

¶31

...RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SRI. RAVI M.M., ADVOCATE)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR TRIAL COURT RECORDS AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 23/06/2025 PASSED ON I.A. NO. 2, BY THE 1 ADDL. FAMILY COURT, HASAN IN M.C. NO. 96/2024, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, BY ENHANCING THE INTERIM MONTHLY MAINTENANCE AS DEEMS FIT BY THIS HON’BLE COURT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Heard Sri Ravi M.M., learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.27223/2025, who is also appearing for the respondent in the connected matter. Also heard Mr. Narayana, who represents Sri Chandrasekhar P.Patil, who is appearing for the respondent in W.P.No.27223/2025 and who is representing the petitioner in the connected writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.31485/2025. These two writ

¶37

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:27471 WP No. 27223 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31485 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

petitions are the outcome of the order that is rendered by

¶40

the Court of Principal Judge, I Additional Family Court, Hassan on IA No.II in M.C.No.96/2024 dated 23.06.2025.

¶41

2. For the sake of convenience of discussion, parties to these writ petitions will hereinafter be referred to as wife and husband.

¶42

3. Wife filed IA No.2 invoking Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and seeking a direction to her husband to pay her a sum of Rs.40,000/towards interim maintenance. Family Court allowed the said application in part. Husband was directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/per month towards interim maintenance to the wife. While husband filed W.P.No.27223/2025 projecting that he is not liable to pay any sum towards maintenance, wife filed W.P.No.31485/2025 on the ground that amount granted towards interim maintenance is too meager and therefore the same requires enhancement.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27471 WP No. 27223 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31485 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

4. Learned counsel who represents the husband submits that husband is ready and willing to take the wife with him and to perform all marital obligations. But wife is refusing to accompany. Learned counsel further submits that gross salary of the husband is Rs.62,000/- and the net salary is Rs.46,000/-. Husband is also under obligation to look after his aged mother. Therefore, he is unable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards interim maintenance and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶46

5. On the other hand, learned counsel who represents the wife contends that it is the wife who filed the case for restitution of conjugal rights. Husband failed to perform his duties and subjected the wife to cruelty. Learned counsel states that the lawful wedlock resulted in birth of two children and those two minor children are under the custody of wife. Wife is spending huge amount for the food, education and other necessities of the children. Learned counsel also states that for maintenance of herself and the children, wife requires a sum of

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:27471 WP No. 27223 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31485 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Rs.40,000/- per month. But Family Court granted a sum of Rs.20,000/- only. Learned counsel also states that, as per the pay-slip for the month of November 2025, the gross salary of the husband is Rs.78,286/- and the net salary is Rs.49,291/-. His mother receives pension and therefore there is no obligation on the part of the husband to look after her. Learned counsel states that the Family Court ought to have awarded Rs.40,000/- towards interim maintenance, but it did not do so.

¶50

7. In the impugned order, there is a clear mention that husband has not filed his affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities and he has not furnished his pay-slip also. No reason is stated as to why he failed to furnish the particulars of his assets and liabilities. It is not the version of husband that the wife is employed or she has got her own source of earnings. Also, it is not the case of husband that he has no liability to maintain his children. Further, there is no denial by him about the custody of children by his wife. In the impugned order, Family Court discussed

¶51

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:27471 WP No. 27223 of 2025 C/W WP No. 31485 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

each and every aspect of the case and also the merits in

¶54

the claim made. Family Court ultimately came to a conclusion that wife is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/towards interim maintenance. This Court does not find any infirmity in the observations made or the conclusion arrived. The sum granted towards interim maintenance is justifiable. Therefore, the impugned order can neither be set aside as sought by the husband nor the sum granted towards interim maintenance be enhanced. Therefore, this

¶55

Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in these

¶56

writ petitions. Resultantly the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

Both the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)