Sri Mayur B N Vs Smt. Padmashree B L — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Mayur B N Vs Smt. Padmashree B L — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Family Court order modified: interim maintenance reduced from Rs.12,000/- to Rs.9,000/- per month, payable from the date of filing of IA No.I till disposal of M.C.No.5217/2018 or until further orders; arrears at the modified rate to be cleared within 8 weeks.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 16.10.2020 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on IA No.I in M.C.No.5217/2018 awarding interim maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month should be quashed. +2 more

Court's answer

The order of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru dated 16.10.2020 on IA No.I in MC No.5217/2018 is modified (not quashed).

Ratio / Principle

No material on record establishes that the petitioner owns a cinema theatre and earns through it, nor that the respondent suffers health issues preventing her from attending the Court and practising as an advocate.

Key takeaways

As per the petitioner's income tax returns discussed at paragraph 18 of the impugned order, his income was Rs.1,71,570/- for assessment year 2013-2014, Rs.85,000/- for assessment year 2015-16, and gross income Rs.2,82,924/- for assessment year 2016-2017.ratio¶40
Taking into consideration these facts, this Court held it wholly justifiable for the petitioner to pay the respondent Rs.9,000/- per month towards interim maintenance.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Art. 226) by the husband challenging the order dtd. 16.10.2020 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on IA No.I in M.C.No.5217/2018 (S.24 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 r/w S.151 CPC), which had fixed interim maintenance at Rs.12,000/- per month. Finding no material that the petitioner earned from a theatre he owned or that the respondent-advocate's health prevented her from attending Court, and relying on the petitioner's income-tax returns (Rs.1,71,570/- AY 2013-14; Rs.85,000/- AY 2015-16; gross Rs.2,82,924/- AY 2016-17) discussed at para 18 of the impugned order, Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha modified the order, fixing interim maintenance at Rs.9,000/- per month from the date of filing of IA No.I till disposal of the M.C. or until further orders, arrears to be cleared within 8 weeks.

NC: 2026:KHC:26548 WP No. 495 of 2021

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 495 OF 2021 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI MAYUR B. N., SON OF LATE NARAYANASWAMY, AGE 45 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO. 4, OPPOSITE TO SRI. RAMA TEMPLE, BIDADI MAIN ROAD, BIDADI TOWN RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. B.V. SHANKARANARAYANA RAO, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. H.K. HONNEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND: by AASEEFA PARVEEN SMT. PADMASHREE B. L., Location: HIGH COURT OF D/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA B S KARNATAKA AGE 43 YEARS NO 330 I A CROSS 5TH A MAIN REMCO LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR, II STAGE BENGALURU - 560040.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AKRAM, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26548 WP No. 495 of 2021

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 16.10.2020 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 5217/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE BENGALURU VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS I.A.NO.1 IN M.C.NO.5217/18 FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC VIDE ANNX-D.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.B.V.Shankaranarayana Rao, learned Senior

Counsel who represents Sri.H.K.Honnegowda, learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri.Mohammed Akram who represents Sri.R.Kothwal, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

Aggrieved by the order that is rendered by the

Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on IA No.I in MC No.5217/2018 dated 16.10.2020 and with a request to quash that order, this writ petition is filed.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26548 WP No. 495 of 2021

HC-KAR

Learned Senior Counsel who represents the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 2014 and thereafter due to differences that arose between them they are residing separately. Petitioner was on employment for considerable period. But, subsequently he was placed under suspension by his employer. The suspension continued for about one and half years. However, later he was taken into service and as of now he is working. Except through his occupation as Project Manager at M/s.MSE Forwarders India Pvt., Ltd., he has no other source of earnings. Respondent is a practicing advocate. Though her practice is not lucrative, she earns sufficiently through her profession. She need not depend upon the petitioner for her livelihood. However, she moved IA No.I seeking the Family Court to direct the petitioner herein to pay her a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/towards litigation expenses. None of the parties filed their statement of

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26548 WP No. 495 of 2021

HC-KAR

assets and liabilities. Family Court through the impugned order directed petitioner to pay respondent a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. Learned counsel contends that petitioner earns not more than Rs.2,00,000/- per annum and therefore, he cannot pay a sum of Rs.1,44,000/- per annum i.e. Rs.12,000/per month towards maintenance of the respondent.

On the other hand, learned counsel who represents the respondent states that respondent is suffering from different health issues and therefore, she is not attending the Court. She has no source of earnings whatsoever. Petitioner apart from attending his job, is also looking after the theatre which he owns and thus he gets income through maintenance of the said theatre. Learned counsel contends that Family Court taking into consideration all the factual aspects, awarded proper amount towards interim maintenance and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26548 WP No. 495 of 2021

HC-KAR

No material is on record to establish in clear

terms that petitioner owns a cinema theatre and earns through it. Likewise, there is no material on record to show that respondent suffers with such health issues which prevents her from attending the Court and practicing as an advocate. Particulars regarding the income tax returns produced by the respondent herein in respect of the petitioner is discussed at paragraph No.18 of the impugned order. As per those documents, the income of the petitioner for the assessment year 20132014 is Rs.1,71,570/-, for the assessment year 2015-16 it is Rs.85,000/-. The gross income for the assessment year 2016-2017 is Rs.2,82,924/-.

Taking into consideration these facts, this Court is of the view that it will be wholly justifiable if petitioner is ordered to pay respondent a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following:

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:26548 WP No. 495 of 2021

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The order rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on IA No.I in MC No.5217/2018 dated 16.10.2020 is modified.

(ii) Petitioner is directed to pay respondent a sum of Rs.9,000/- per month towards interim maintenance from the date of filing of IA No.I till the disposal of MC No.5217/2018 or until further orders by the Family Court, Bengaluru.

(iii) All arrears at the rate mentioned above shall be cleared within a period of 8 weeks.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44