Smt Pavana v R Vs Sri Pradeep M — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

Smt Pavana v R Vs Sri Pradeep M — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/wife, who is employed and earning, is entitled to interim maintenance from the respondent/husband, challenging the Family Court's dismissal of her application I.A.No.VIII. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner/wife is not entitled to interim maintenance as sought for; the claim has no merits and the writ petition lacks merits.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner and respondent did not beget any children; thus the income received by the petitioner/wife will only be spent for herself.

Key takeaways

No material whatsoever was produced to show that the father and mother of the respondent/husband jointly receive more than Rs.12,000/- per month.ratio¶56
Having obtained a huge loan for her necessities, the petitioner/wife cannot claim that because she is paying EMIs to clear that loan she has to be maintained by her husband.ratio¶61
On the wife's claim to live in the same status as the husband, the Court reasoned that the respondent's parents should also live in the same status as their son; if the petitioner/wife cannot live on her net salary of Rs.52,234/-, the parents cannot be expected to live in the same status on Rs.12,000/-.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha), oral order dated 05.02.2026 in WP No. 33168 of 2024 (GM-FC) under Article 227 of the Constitution: dismissed. The petitioner/wife (a working Nursing Tutor) challenged the order of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dated 19.10.2024 dismissing her I.A.No.VIII in M.C.No.5733/2021 — the husband's divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act — by which she sought interim maintenance of Rs.30,000 per month and Rs.1,00,000 litigation expenses under Section 24, Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 151 CPC. Per the statements of Assets and Liabilities, the wife's net salary is Rs.52,234/- against the husband's Rs.68,995/-; the parties have no children, so the wife's income is spent only for herself; no material showed the husband's parents jointly receive more than Rs.12,000/- per month; and, the purpose of the wife's loans (personal loan of Rs.9,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/-) being nowhere stated, the Court held that having obtained a huge loan for her necessities she cannot claim maintenance because she pays EMIs. On the claim to live in the same status as the husband, the Court reasoned the husband's parents must equally live in the same status as their son on Rs.12,000/-. The Court noted the Apex Court dictum in Shailaja and another and Kobanna (SLP(Crl.) No(s).60256026/2013) that capacity to earn and whether the wife is really earning are different aspects, and accepted that the decisions of the High Court of Delhi (Jaspreet Singh and Swaneet Kukreja, Cr.Rev.P. No.162/2021; Nidhi Sudan and Manish Kumar Khanna, 2023 SCC OnLine Delhi 7652) and of the High Court of Karnataka (Shylaja S. R. and others vs. Hareesha A, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 15) have not held that a wife with sufficient earnings to maintain herself can yet claim maintenance from the husband. Finding no merits in the claim, the writ petition was dismissed.

NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 33168 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PAVANA V R W/O SRI PRADEEP M, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, AS PER THE CAUSE TITLE, BEFORE THE FAMILY COURT, THE ADDRESS OF PETITIONER, R/AT NO. 623/2, VALAGEREHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 428

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

ALSO AT, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR/ LECTURER KEMPEGOWDA NURSING, KIMS CAMPUS, K R ROAD, VV PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 004. R/OF HOUSE NO. 5/33-A 1ST FLOOR, 2ND MAIN ROAD, BYATARYANAPURA, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

AND:

SRI. PRADEEP M S/O SRI. MARIGOWDA D, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/OF NO. 126/1, II MAIN, II STAGE, SHIVU LAYOUT, BENGALURU UNIVERSITY MAIN ROAD, OPP DANAVANTHRI VANA MARIYAPPANAPALYA, JNANABHARATHI POST, BENGALURU - 560 056.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. B.S. VENKATANARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ON IA NO.8 DATED 19/10/2024 IN M.C.NO.5733/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION/IA NO.8 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS PRAYED FOR VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

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

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER

Heard. Sri. Basavaraju P., learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B.S.Venkatanarayana, who represents Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A.No.VIII in M.C.No.5733/2021 dated 19.10.2024, this Writ Petition is filed.

The relationship between the parties to the proceedings is not in dispute. Thus the petitioner herein is the wife of the respondent. Respondent/husband filed a petition invoking Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage

Act seeking the Court to pass a decree of divorce. In the said case, petitioner/wife filed an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.VIII seeking interim maintenance of

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

Rs.30,000/per month and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-. Family Court expressing an opinion that the petitioner/wife is not entitled for any interim maintenance dismissed the said interlocutory application and aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that petitioner is working as Nursing Tutor. Though her gross salary is around Rs.80,000/- per month, she took personal loan of Rs.9,00,000/- from Canara Bank and SAF loan of Rs.4,00,000/-. She is required to pay the EMIs. Thus after all deductions, she gets around Rs.27,000/- per month. The said amount is not sufficient to her to maintain herself. On the other hand, respondent/husband earns around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Respondent/husband is working as Shiresthedar in a Family Court. It is the liability of the husband to maintain the wife. Only because wife is earning, husband cannot escape from liability to maintain his wife. Therefore, the Family Court ought to have allowed the application filed by the wife to grant interim

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

maintenance and ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as claimed. However, the Family Court dismissed the application and therefore this writ petition is filed.

With a submission that even wife who earns and has got her own sources of income is entitled for maintenance and that she should live in the same standard as that of her husband, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Shailaja and another and Kobanna, in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).60256026/2013.

Vehemently opposing the submission thus made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent states that there is difference of around Rs.10,000/- only from take home salary of the petitioner and respondent. Respondent is under obligation to maintain his parents who are aged more than 70 years. Father of the respondent gets pension of Rs.2,000/- per

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

month and mother gets rent of Rs.10,000/- per month and

the same is disclosed in the statement of Assets and Liabilities. However, Pension of Rs.2,000/- and rent of Rs.10,000/- put together Rs.12,000/- is not sufficient for them to maintain themselves and to attend medical needs. Therefore, liability vests upon respondent who is their son to look after their welfare. That apart petitioner/wife has got sufficient earnings to maintain herself. Perceiving these facts, the Family Court rightly dismissed the petition filed by her seeking interim maintenance and thus this Writ Petition is not maintainable.

In the decision that is relied upon by learned

counsel for the petitioner which is referred supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that capacity to earn and whether wife is really earning are two different aspects and only because wife is capable of earning, maintenance granted cannot be reduced.

As rightly submitted by learned counsel for

respondent, the other decisions that were relied upon by

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

learned counsel for the petitioner, that is the decisions of the High Court of Delhi in the case between Jaspreet Singh and Swaneet Kukreja in Criminal Revision Petition No.162/2021, in the case between Nidhi Sudan and Manish Kumar Khanna reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Delhi 7652, the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case between Shylaja S. R. and others vs. Hareesha A reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 15, the Courts have not held that where the wife has got sufficient earnings to maintain herself, even then she can claim maintenance from the husband.

In the case on hand, as per the statement of Assets and Liabilities filed by both parties, while the gross salary of petitioner/wife is Rs.84,317/-, the gross salary of respondent/husband is Rs.1,00,092/-. Likewise, while the net salary of petitioner/wife is Rs.52,234/-, the net salary of respondent/husband is Rs.68,995/-. Admittedly, petitioner and respondent did not beget any children. Thus, the income petitioner/wife receives will only be

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

spent for herself. No material whatsoever is produced to show that father and mother of respondent/husband jointly receives more than Rs.12,000/- per month as mentioned in the statement of Assets and Liabilities filed by respondent/husband.

The contention of petitioner/wife is that she should live in the same standard of living and on same pedestal as that of the status of respondent/husband. Thus wife claims to live in the same status of her husband. There may be no denial to her wish. However, even the parents of respondent/husband should also live in the same status of their son. If petitioner/wife cannot live with a sum of Rs.52,234/- she receives as net salary and lead life with the same, how can the parents of respondent husband lead life with the same status with Rs.12,000/meager sum should be thought of. Petitioner/wife projects that she obtained personal loan of Rs.9,00,000/- apart from Rs.4,00,000/- of another loan and she has to pay EMIs. For what purpose, she obtained such personal loan

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:6982 WP No. 33168 of 2024

HC-KAR

of Rs.9,00,000/- is not stated anywhere. Having obtained

huge loan for her necessities, she cannot now claim that she is paying EMIs to clear that loan and therefore she has to be maintained by her husband. Thus viewed from any angle, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the claim of the petitioner/wife that she is entitled for interim maintenance as sought for. Thus ultimately this Court holds that the Writ Petition lacks merits. Thus the following:

ORDER

The Writ Petition is dismissed.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36