Girish Vs Nandini

SMT. S. NANDINI, W/O GIRISH D/O SRINIVAS D.K, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT SHRUSTI NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR ARYABHATA ROAD, DSARAKOPPALU, HARALAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE AND: SHEKHAR DESAI SRI. GIRISH, Location: High S/O C. KESHAVEGOWDA, Court of AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Karnataka R/AT NO.1384, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH 'A' MAIN, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGARA, MYSURU - 570 022.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. HARISH T.S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶19

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO DIRECTION DIRECTING TO MODIFY THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE AWARDED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPLE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HASSAN DTD. 04.10.2025 AND ETC.,

¶21

IN WP NO.37502/2025

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

GIRISH S/O. KESHAVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. NO.1384, 12^TH CROSS, 4^TH A MAIN ROAD, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSURU – 570 022.

¶24

...PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI. HARISH T.S., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

NANDINI W/O GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O 1^ST CROSS, ARYABHATA ROAD, JAYANAGAR, HASSAN – 573 201. (BY SRI. SUNDARESH H C., ADVOCATE)

¶28

...RESPONDENT

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HASSAN AND ETC., IN CRL. MISC. NO. 86/2025 ON THE I.A NO. 2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, PRODUCED VIDE, ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,

¶30

3 -

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶33

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶34

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 16.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J. , MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶36

CAV ORDER

¶37

Writ petition No.5534/2026 is filed by wife against the order of the Family Court on I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.86/2025 dated 04.10.2025.

¶38

Writ petition No.37502/2025 is filed by husband to set aside the order dated 04.10.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.86/2025. He almost reiterated the contentions made before the Family Court. Therefore, need not be extracted again.

¶39

The said application is filed by petitioner/wife for maintenance. During the pendency of the proceedings, she sought for interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. Considering the arguments from both sides and documents filed by both of them, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hassan granted an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month towards interim maintenance and directed the respondent to pay the same from the date of filing of the application till the disposal of the main petition. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred an appeal

¶40

4 -

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶43

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶44

and mainly contended that their marriage was performed on 20.04.2015 and it was registered on 10.06.2015 and a male child was born on 14.06.2016.

¶45

Respondent filed M.C.No.211/2019 for divorce and in an order dated 21.12.2023 their marriage was dissolved. Against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal in MFA No.808/2024. It was admitted and interim stay was granted on 01.03.2024. She also filed Crl.Misc.No.282/2020 against the respondent, his parents and sister under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. In the said application respondent filed false affidavit stating that he is not employed anywhere though he is working in Software Company and drawing handsome salary. Basing on the said affidavit, no amount was granted in her favour. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month to the child. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.59/2025 and interim stay order is granted, with a direction to pay the maintenance of Rs.7,500/per month to the child. She also filed Crl.Misc.No.86/2025 claiming interim maintenance and expenses of the proceedings and it is converted under Section

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶49

144(1) of BNSS Act and she filed I.A.No.2 for grant of interim maintenance. She stated that she is a B.E.Graduate and unemployed, housewife, has no source of income and she is staying with her father, whereas, respondent is Assistant Professor in Vidyavardhaka College, Mysuru and later working as H.R.Manager in IT Sector Company and earning Rs.2,00,000/- per month. He also filed an affidavit stating that he is working as a Vice President of H.R. department, Neokred, Bengaluru and drawing a salary of Rs.1,78,530/-. The petitioner has also filed pay-slip of the respondent which shows that he was drawing a gross salary of Rs.2,06,533/-, after deduction of Rs.28,003/-, he is getting Rs.1,78,530/-. Respondent also filed pay slips for the months of April, May, June and July, 2025. She collected the resume of the respondent which shows that he was continuously working since 2007, there is carrier break of six months from October 2024 to March 2025. Though respondent admitted that he is working in I.T. Sector and drawing gross salary of Rs.2,06,533/-, the Family Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner requested

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶52

6 -

¶53

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶54

for enhancement of the same from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.40,000/-. She further stated that respondent is having landed property and the meager amount granted by the Family Court is to be enhanced. Thus, requested the Court for modification of the order dated 04.10.2025.

¶55

Heard arguments of both sides.

¶56

There is no dispute regarding other aspects stated

¶57

by the petitioner in her writ petition i.e. dissolution of marriage, filing of appeals, pendency of the cases as on today. Therefore, it need not be repeated. Respondent/husband in his assets and liabilities stated that he owns commercial buildings and gets rents and she is staying in her own house and has properties, but not filed any document to substantiate the same. Respondent also produced account statement maintained at HSBC Premier composite statement of Bangalore Branch.

¶58

The respondent produced the letter dated

¶59

03.09.2025, in which it is stated that he worked in the Company from 02.04.2025 to 31.08.2025 and he was designated as Vice President of Human Resources at the time of

¶60

7 -

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶63

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶64

leaving the organization. It is further stated that as she was asking for the details of his job and salary, the company terminated him from the job. But in the said letter reason for leaving the organization is not mentioned. Petitioner/wife also produced the bio-data from the website to show that the respondent worked in a reputed multinational companies from November 2007 to April 2025, which is stated in paragraph 16 of the order of the Family Court. He stated that he left the organization on 31.08.2025. The petitioner further stated in the divorce application, he gave false information in the affidavit filed on 16.02.2022, in occupation column he has shown as unemployed. Even in M.C.No.211/2019 he stated that he resigned at Vidhyavadhaka College at Mysuru. In Criminal Appeal No.59/2025 he stated that he could not get new jobs and he is unable to move out of Mysuru and he has to take care of his parents. It is further stated that petitioner is a B.E. Graduate and capable of earning and she did not depend on him.

¶65

The counsel for the respondent submitted that petitioner's father owns vast properties and gets lakhs of

¶66

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶69

rupees as income from rents and cultivation, but he has not filed any documents. It was observed that her father's income cannot be considered as source of income to her. Respondent in his assets and liabilities statement stated that his family possessed 2 acres 12 guntas of land, but it was not divided. Petitioner filed partition suit in O.S.No.225/2023 on behalf of the child. Considering all the facts, interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month was granted by the Family Court. Admittedly after divorce proceedings petitioner/wife herein filed Crl.Misc.No.86/2025 claiming maintenance. There are several cases pending between the parties including the appeal against the dissolution of the marriage. Though respondent stated that petitioner's father owns properties and getting lakhs of rupees through rents and agriculture, as on today he could not produced any documents. The petitioner stated that respondent was earning Rs.2,06,533/- as per the salary slips, but he stated that he was terminated from the job and he could not get any job. No doubt respondent is highly qualified worked in different reputed organizations, but now he is not working and earning and he admitted regarding 2 acres 12 guntas of land and stated

¶70

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:37440 WP No. 5534 of 2026 C/W WP No. 37502 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

CNR: KAHC010119792026

¶73

that it was not divided. So it is not stated anywhere as to how many siblings respondent have and what is his share in the said land.

¶74

Petitioner also filed suit for partition requesting the Court for share in the property. Even in the divorce proceedings it was observed that in view of pendency of other cases, they are not granting any alimony. Therefore, the Family Court rightly considered all the aspects and granted an amount of Rs.7,500/- per month to the petitioner herein who is a B.E. Graduate. She is capable of earning. Merely because she stated that she is not working presently, she is not entitled for enhancement as sought for. It will be decided by the Family Court at the time of disposal of the main Crl.Misc.No.86/2025, after considering evidence of both sides. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Family Court.

¶75

In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed confirming the order of the Family Court.

¶76

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶77

AP, List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3

Girish v. Nandini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish v. Nandini

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

Smt Manpreeth R Vs Sri Sandeep R

Smt. Meghashri. D Vs Sri. Bharathesh

Brinda S N Vs Manoj Deshpande

The Branch Manager Vs Mamatha

Mamatha Vs B S Chidananda Reddy

Sheetal Sony Vs Shlav Kumar