Mr D Viswanath Vs Smt Mamta @ Mamta Vishwanath — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mr D Viswanath Vs Smt Mamta @ Mamta Vishwanath — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 13.11.2025 on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.681/2024 set aside; liberty granted to the respondent to file her affidavit of assets and liabilities afresh; Family Court directed to dispose of I.A.No.III afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity to produce his documents.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 227 seeking quashing of the order dated 13.11.2025 of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru (partly allowing I.A.No.III under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance) should be allowed. +1 more

Court's answer

Without going into the merits of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

It stood disclosed before this Court that the respondent had suppressed material particulars in the affidavit given by her disclosing her assets and liabilities.

Key takeaways

Setting aside the impugned order does not mean that the respondent is not entitled to maintenance.obiter¶45
The relief sought by the respondent cannot be granted only because she, having sought maintenance, failed to place material particulars before the Court.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Interim maintenance — S.24, Hindu Marriage Act — Affidavit of assets and liabilities — Suppression of material particulars. On the wife's application (I.A.No.III in M.C.No.681/2024) the Family Court, Mysuru awarded Rs.15,000/- interim maintenance against Rs.60,000/- p.m. sought; the husband sought certiorari under Article 227. Materials showed the wife to be an income-tax assessee holding Rs.26,50,000/- in fixed deposits, neither disclosed in her affidavit of assets and liabilities (omission attributed to oversight); counsel for the husband alleged he held over one crore rupees. Held: suppression of material particulars prevented a just assessment of financial status; the impugned order was set aside without going into merits; liberty given to the wife to file the affidavit afresh and the Family Court directed to dispose of I.A.No.III afresh after hearing the husband; setting aside the order does not mean the wife is not entitled to maintenance.

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.38852 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

MR. D. VISWANATH

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. SRI N. DEVAN AND N. JAYALAKSHMI

PERMANENT ADDRESS AT

HOUSE NO.6/46/C AROKIAPURAM WELLINGTON BARRACKS THE NILGRIS

TAMIL NADU-643 231

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI BRIAN CRISPIN REGO, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. MAMTA @ MAMTA VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O. MR. D. VISWANATH D/O. MR. NEMI CHAND CHOUHAN AND PANI PRAMILA PRESENTLY R/O. FLAT NO.H-602

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025

HC-KAR

PRITHVI WORLD APARTMENTS BANNUR ROAD SIDDHARTH LAYOUT NEAR NAZARBAD POLICE STATION MYSURU-570 010

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SANIDHYA M. J., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU, IN M.C. NO.681/2024, PARTLY ALLOWING I.A. NO.III FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND THEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Brian Crispin Rego learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Sanidhya.M.J learned counsel for the respondent.

Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari

and to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.681/2024 dated 13.11.2025, this writ petition is filed.

Respondent herein who is the wife of petitioner filed a petition seeking decree of divorce. She also moved an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.III seeking the Court to direct her husband i.e., petitioner herein to pay her a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. The Court through the impugned order directed petitioner herein to pay respondent a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards interim maintenance. Aggrieved by

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025

HC-KAR

the order thus passed, husband is before this Court by filing this writ petition.

Both the learned counsel during the course of their respective submission, defending their clients, argued at length that they have no source of income whatsoever. However, at later point of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner receives a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and odd towards pension. So far as the earnings of respondent are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court certain crucial aspects. Respondent in her statement of assets and liabilities made a clear mention that she is not an income tax assessee. However, by the documents produced by the petitioner, it is clear that respondent is an income tax assessee. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent holds a sum of Rs.26,50,000/- deposited in the bank by way of fixed deposits. Learned counsel for the respondent failed to deny the fact that respondent has not shown the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025

HC-KAR

said asset in the statement filed by her regarding her assets and liabilities before the Court. Learned counsel submits that by oversight they were not shown.

The very purpose of filing of an affidavit of assets and liabilities by both parties to the proceedings in family matters is to bring to the knowledge of each other, the assets and liabilities they hold and also to the Court, so that the Court can come to a just conclusion about their financial status and decide this lis. However, in the case on hand, petitioner failed to disclose the fact that she is an income tax assessee and also the fixed deposits she hold. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that even the petitioner is guilty of suppression of his assets and that he holds a sum of Rupees one crore and odd in the accounts maintained by him and that his transactions reveals that in a single month he transacted more than Rupees five crores.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025

HC-KAR

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court could not come to a conclusion either with regard to the entitlement of respondent for maintenance or interim maintenance, her earnings if any, financial assets she holds and equally the assets of petitioner herein. As it is disclosed before this Court that respondent has suppressed the material particulars in the affidavit given by her disclosing her assets and liabilities. Therefore, without going into merits of the matter this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

However, it is made clear that setting aside impugned order does not mean that respondent is not entitled for maintenance. Only because respondent who sought maintenance failed to place before the Court material particulars, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by her cannot be granted. Hence, the following:

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.681/2024 dated 13.11.2025 is set aside.

(iii) In the light of the submission that by oversight all the particulars are not furnished, liberty is granted to respondent to file her affidavit of assets and liabilities afresh.

(iv) On filing such affidavit and on granting an opportunity to petitioner herein to produce his documents, if any, the Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.III afresh.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23