Sri I. Vijayaraghavan, Vs Smt. Seetha Bopaiah — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri I. Vijayaraghavan, Vs Smt. Seetha Bopaiah — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Family Court order modified to the limited extent of payment of EMIs: petitioner directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of application till disposal of the main case (M.C.No.167/2023) towards his share of EMI; rest of the amount to be paid by the respondent.

Issue for consideration

Legality and correctness of the Family Court order on I.A.No.III/I.A.3/2023 in M.C.No.167/2023 dated 20.11.2024 to the extent it directs the petitioner to pay 50% of the housing-loan EMI. +1 more

Court's answer

The Family Court order rendered on I.A.No.III in M.C.167/2023 dated 20.11.2024 is modified to the limited extent of payment of EMIs.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the facts, particularly the respondent's receipt of Rs. 25,000/- per month as rent even according to her own version, the Court considered it desirable to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month to the bank towards EMI.

Key takeaways

The petitioner is to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of application till disposal of the main case towards his share of EMI.ratio¶41
The rest of the EMI amount shall be paid by the respondent.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha), Writ Petition No. 6101 of 2025 (GM-FC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India — disposed on 10.02.2026. The petitioner-husband challenged, to the extent of payment of 50% of the housing-loan EMI, the order dated 20.11.2024 of the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.167/2023 taken under S.24 r/w S.26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The house stands in the joint names of the parties (ground + three floors); ground and third floors were let out, the respondent and children reside on the first and second floors, and the petitioner resides in rented premises; the monthly EMI is around Rs. 41,500/-. The impugned order had also directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance to the children. Weighing the respondent's receipt of Rs. 25,000/- per month as rent even by her own version, this Court modified the impugned order to the limited extent of payment of EMIs: the petitioner to pay Rs. 15,000/- per month from the date of application till disposal of the main case towards his share of EMI, the rest to be paid by the respondent. No precedent was cited or relied upon.

NC: 2026:KHC:7947 WP No. 6101 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6101 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI I. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, S/O. SRI. G.R.INBAARAAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.347, B BLOCK, 402, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560034.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. V. R. BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by AASEEFA SMT. SEETHA BOPAIAH, PARVEEN Location: HIGH W/O SRI. I. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, COURT OF D/O SRI.C.S. BOPAIAH, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.29/1, BTR GARDEN PHASE-II, AECS A-BLOCK, KUDLU, BENGALURU-560068.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:7947 WP No. 6101 of 2025

HC-KAR

ALSO AT NO.7, 24TH E CROSS, EJIPURA, BENGALURU-560047.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. MENTO ISAC, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN M.C.NO. 167/2023 AND EXAMINE THE LEGALITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER ON I.A.3/2023 U/SEC.24 R/W SEC. 26 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT DTD. 20.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AT ANNX-A AND QUASH THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF PAYING 50 PERCENT OF EMI ON HOUSE HOUSING LOAN BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7947 WP No. 6101 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.V.R.Balaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Mento Isac, learned counsel for the respondent.

Challenging the order that is passed by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.167/2023 dated 20.11.2024 to the extent of directing the petitioner to pay 50% of the EMI of the housing loan, this writ petition is filed.

By all the submissions that is made by both the learned counsel, it is clear that the house in question stands in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent. It contains four floors (ground + three floors). Ground floor and third floor were let out. In first and second floors respondent and her children are residing. Petitioner is not residing in the said house and he is residing in a house taken on rent. Petitioner and respondent took housing loan

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7947 WP No. 6101 of 2025

HC-KAR

and they are required to pay EMI which is around ₹41,500/- per month. These facts are not in dispute.

The version of the petitioner is that respondent and children are enjoying the property and they are receiving rents and hence they have to pay the dues and clear the housing loan.

On the other hand the version of the respondent is that she is under obligation to look after the children and therefore she cannot pay and clear the entire housing loan.

Admittedly, petitioner and respondent are

employees.

When learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent is receiving a sum of ₹28,000/- as rent from both the tenants, learned counsel for the respondent states that she is receiving only ₹25,000/- per month from the tenants and she has to maintain the building and also is under obligation to attend repairs.

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:7947 WP No. 6101 of 2025

HC-KAR

The Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹40,000/- per month as maintenance to the children. Considering these facts more particularly the fact that respondent is receiving a sum of ₹25,000/- per month as rent even according to her own version, this Court considers desirable to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of ₹15,000/- per month to the bank towards EMI. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the following:

ORDER

i) The order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.III in M.C.167/2023 dated 20.11.2024 is modified to the limited extent of payment of EMIs. ii) Petitioner to pay a sum of ₹15,000/- per month from the date of application till disposal of the main case towards his share of EMI.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:7947 WP No. 6101 of 2025

HC-KAR

iii) Rest of the amount shall be paid by the respondent.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50