Dismissed¶¶64

Mr Prakash Murigeppa Harapanahalli v. Mrs Shwetha Walvekar

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2026WP/33410/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim maintenance; Section 125 CrPC; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 applied; capacity to pay of unemployed husband; able-bodied husband presumed capable of earning; working wife's income not an absolute bar to maintenance; quantum assessment; Rs.20,000 per month upheld; Family Court Bengaluru; Crl.Misc.No.685/2022; IA No.2; writ petition dismissed; arrears of interim maintenance payable within three months.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is dismissed; the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.685/2022 is upheld, and the Petitioner is directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within three months from the date of the order. ¶¶64

Mr Prakash Murigeppa Harapanahalli Vs Mrs Shwetha… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month awarded by the Family Court is just and reasonable, and whether any interference is warranted in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶¶52

Court's answer

Capacity to pay: an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and cannot evade his legal obligation by merely citing unemployment; the Petitioner, though unemployed since 08.09.2023, has TDS records demonstrating substantial earning capacity, professional qualifications and past lucrative income signifying continued capacity to meet matrimonial obligations.

¶¶17

Ratio / Principle

Wife's income: gainful employment is not an absolute bar to awarding maintenance; the Court must assess whether the income sustains a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed in the matrimonial home. The Respondent's salary of Rs.40,000/- per month is comparatively modest given the Petitioner's documented monthly income during the marriage and does not bridge the status gap.

¶¶18

Key takeaways

Quantum: out of the Rs.70,000/- per month sought, the Family Court judiciously reduced interim maintenance to Rs.20,000/-, which this Court finds to be a conservative and supportive amount intended to prevent destitution relative to the Petitioner's status.ratio¶¶19
Interference: the learned Family Judge correctly applied the principles enunciated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324; there is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting interference, and the order of the Family Court is just and reasonable.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on IA No.2 in Crl.Misc.685/2022, awarding the wife interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month in proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC. Held, dismissing the petition: (i) an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and cannot evade his maintenance obligation by merely citing unemployment — the Petitioner, a qualified software engineer unemployed since 08.09.2023, had TDS-documented taxable income of Rs.45,50,288/- and Rs.66,29,532/- and an alleged past monthly salary of Rs.4,50,000/-, demonstrating continued capacity to pay; (ii) the Respondent-wife's gainful employment (salary exceeding Rs.40,000/- per month) is not an absolute bar to maintenance, her income being comparatively modest and not bridging the status gap vis-à-vis the matrimonial lifestyle; (iii) the quantum of Rs.20,000/- per month, reduced from the Rs.70,000/- sought, is a conservative and supportive amount intended to prevent destitution relative to the Petitioner's status; (iv) the Family Court correctly applied Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 and there is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting interference. Petitioner directed to clear all arrears of interim maintenance within three months.

¶1

¶2

WP No. 33410 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.33410 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. PRAKASH MURIGEPPA HARAPANAHALLI S/O MURIGEPPA HARAPANAHALLI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT: NO.LIG-349, 12^TH CROSS, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI-580 025 CURRENTLY R/A ANRIYA GREINBERY APARTMENT, FLAT NO.5203, 2^ND FLOOR, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, ALLALASANDRA, YELAHANKA, GKVK POST, NEAR JDB INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL BANGALORE-560 065.

¶10

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MRS. SHWETHA WALVEKAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O LATE GANGASA WALVEKAR R/AT NO.G-2, 1^ST FLOOR, DHRUVA AURORA APARTMENT, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, NO.22, GIDAPPA BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI. REGO L.P.E.,ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

WP No. 33410 of 2025

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.2025 UPON IA NO. 2 IN CRL. MISC. 685/2022 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND REDUCE THE QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE PASSED INORDER DATED 04.08.2025 UPON IA NO. 2 IN CRL. MISC NO. 685/2022 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU FROM RS. 20,000/- TO NIL PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶22

CAV ORDER

¶23

The Petitioner-husband has preferred this Writ

¶24

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the Learned IV Addl. Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, on IA.No.2 in Crl.Misc.685/2022. By the impugned order, the Family Court directed the Petitioner to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondentwife.

¶25

¶26

WP No. 33410 of 2025

¶27

The Petitioner herein (husband) was the

¶28

Respondent before the Family Court, and the Respondent herein (wife) was the Petitioner in the Family Court.

¶29

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before this Court.

¶30

The Petitioner and the Respondent solemnized their marriage on 04.07.2021, at the Ulavi Channabasaveshawara Temple in Dharwad, Karnataka. Both parties were divorcees at the time of the marriage.

¶31

The matrimonial relationship was short-lived and marked by significant discord. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondent treated him primarily as a personal financier and used threats of criminal complaints to extract funds.

¶32

The Petitioner is a qualified software engineer. However, following organizational restructuring, he lost his job, with his last working day being 08.09.2023. He maintains he is currently unemployed and sustains himself through savings and his parents' pension.

¶33

¶34

WP No. 33410 of 2025

¶35

The Respondent holds an M.Sc. from Sunway

¶36

University, Malaysia. Since January 2023, she has been employed as Administrative Support (SQA) at Elanco, Bangalore, earning a salary exceeding Rs.40,000/- per month . Her mother is a pensioner, and the Respondent has no dependents.

¶37

The Petitioner alleges that in May 2022, the Respondent deserted the matrimonial home without information. Conversely, the Respondent filed maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC on 23.09.2022, seeking Rs.70,000/- per month.

¶38

The Petitioner contends that the Family Court failed to consider the Respondent's independent income and his own lack of employment as disclosed in the respective Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities.

¶39

It is further urged that the law regarding interim maintenance is not intended to equalize the income of spouses, and given the Respondent's stable employment,

¶40

¶41

WP No. 33410 of 2025

¶42

the order is an arbitrary burden upon an unemployed spouse.

¶43

Learned counsel for the Respondent-wife has urged that the marriage was marked by cruelty and intimidation. She submits the Petitioner has failed to provide any maintenance since May 2022.

¶44

While the Respondent is currently undertaking a research course, it is submitted that the Petitioner is a highly successful software engineer who was earning a monthly salary of Rs.4,50,000/- at Innominds Software Pvt. Ltd. .

¶45

The Respondent produced Tax Deduction Statements (TDS) for the years 2022-2024 demonstrating the Petitioner’s total taxable income was Rs.45,50,288/and Rs.66,29,532/- respectively.

¶46

It is further contended by the respondent that

¶47

the Petitioner owns a 3BHK house in Yelahanka and two properties in the United Kingdom.

¶48

¶49

WP No. 33410 of 2025

¶50

Heard learned counsels appearing for both

¶51

parties.

¶52

This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has carefully perused the impugned order and the underlying material on record. The primary issue for adjudication is whether the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month is just and reasonable.

¶53

Regarding Capacity to Pay, the law laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 is unequivocal: an able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and cannot evade his legal obligation by merely citing unemployment. The Petitioner’s TDS records demonstrate a substantial earning capacity. His professional qualifications and past lucrative income signify a continued capacity to meet matrimonial obligations.

¶54

On Wife’s Income, it is well-settled that gainful employment is not an absolute bar to awarding maintenance. The Court must assess if the income is

¶55

¶56

WP No. 33410 of 2025

¶57

sufficient to sustain a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Given the Petitioner’s documented monthly income during the marriage, the Respondent’s salary of Rs.40,000/- is comparatively modest and does not bridge the status gap.

¶58

Regarding Quantum, the Respondent initially sought Rs.70,000/-. The Family Court judiciously reduced this to Rs.20,000/-, which this Court finds to be a conservative and supportive maintenance amount intended to prevent destitution relative to the Petitioner's status .

¶59

This Court finds that the learned Family Judge has correctly applied the principles enunciated in Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. There is no jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting interference. The order of the Family Court is just and reasonable.

¶60