Dismissed

Mr.Amit Karekar v. Smt.Vaishali

Karnataka HC24 Apr 2026WP/38426/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband challenged a Family Court interim maintenance award to his wife in matrimonial proceedings. The High Court held a stray inconsistent observation did not vitiate the award, applied Rajnesh v. Neha on capability to earn, and dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr.Amit Karekar Vs Smt.Vaishali — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 38426 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.38426 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.AMIT KAREKAR S/O LATE.PRABHAKAR KAREKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/A NO.577, 15^TH MAIN, 10^TH CROSS, PADMANABHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 070.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR HIREMATH.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SMT.VAISHALI D/O VIJAYKUMAR NAVAGHARE, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.APT. NO.320, JSR THE BANYAN APTS, J.P. NAGAR 9^TH PAHSE, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. C.S. PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AND CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN M.C.NO. 418/2018 PENDING ON THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU (ANNX-B).DIRECTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON I.A.NO. 3 DTD. 15.04.2025 PASSED BY I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN M.C.NO. 418/2018 (ANNX-A) AND ETC.

¶17

¶18

WP No. 38426 of 2025

¶19

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

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

¶21

CAV ORDER

¶22

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.418/2018. By the impugned order, the Family Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent-wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, directing the petitioner to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- and a one-time litigation expense of Rs.10,000/-.

¶23

The parties appear in the same capacity as Petitioner/Husband and Respondent/Wife as they do before the Family Court.

¶24

The facts briefly stated are that the parties were married on 26.12.2013. Following marital discord,

¶25

¶26

WP No. 38426 of 2025

¶27

the petitioner-husband filed a matrimonial case for dissolution of marriage. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent-wife filed I.A.No.3 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month, asserting that she is a housewife with no independent source of income and is currently searching for a job.

¶28

The petitioner-husband resisted the application, contending that the respondent is a qualified BAMS doctor who has previously served as a Senior Medical Officer and is thus capable of maintaining herself. He further pleaded his own financial liabilities, including his responsibility to maintain his aged parents and his recent medical expenses following a surgery.

¶29

Upon hearing both sides, the Family Court observed that the petitioner is an MBA graduate working as a Team Leader with a monthly income of approximately Rs.61,000/-. While acknowledging the respondent’s medical qualifications, the court noted she is currently searching for employment and has no stable income.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 38426 of 2025

¶32

Consequently, the court awarded a "supportive

¶33

maintenance" of Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily challenged the order on the grounds of factual contradiction, pointing out that the Family Court in its reasoning recorded that the respondent "earns more than the petitioner," yet proceeded to grant maintenance. It is urged that such an order is unsustainable in law.

¶35

Having carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. The scope of Article 227 is a supervisory jurisdiction and not an appellate one. This Court will only interfere if the order of the subordinate court is demonstrably perverse or without jurisdiction.

¶36

While the petitioner has pointed out that paragraph 16 of the order mentions the respondent as earning more than the petitioner, this specific observation appears to have been wrongly considered in isolation. A reading of the entire order, specifically paragraphs 12 and 13, confirms that the Family court was fully aware of the

¶37

¶38

WP No. 38426 of 2025

¶39

respondent's actual status as a professional currently without employment and searching for work. Such an inconsistency in the recording of observations does not vitiate the final conclusion when it is otherwise supported by the substantive material on record regarding the parties' current financial positions.

¶40

As per the principles laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324 , the mere "capability to earn" is not a ground to deny maintenance to a spouse who is not actually earning. The purpose of Section 24 is to provide "succor pendente lite" to ensure a standard of living consistent with the matrimonial home. In this case, the awarded sum of Rs.10,000/- represents approximately 16% of the petitioner’s declared income and is a reasonable amount for sustenance in a city like Bengaluru.

¶41

The Family Court has balanced the equities by reducing the maintenance from the Rs.40,000/- claimed to a modest Rs.10,000/-. Finding no patent illegality or

¶42

¶43

WP No. 38426 of 2025

¶44

jurisdictional error that warrants interference, the petition

¶45

is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

ORDER

¶47

(i) The Writ Petition No. 38426 of 2025 is DISMISSED .

¶48

(ii) The order passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.418/2018 dated 15.04.2025 is UPHELD .

¶49

(iii) The petitioner is directed to clear all arrears of maintenance within eight weeks from today and ensure regular monthly payments to the respondent as ordered by the Family court.

¶50

SD/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶51

bnv

Mr.Amit Karekar v. Smt.Vaishali

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr.Amit Karekar v. Smt.Vaishali

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs Smt. Bharathi R

Mrs Veena Santhosh Vs Mr Santhosh Nayak

Smt M R Kavya Kusuma Vs Sri R Harish

Sagar S S Vs Smt. Mahima K S

Ravikumar T Vs Smt Nagarathna N

L Anand Vs Smt Nidhi S