- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49114
WP No. 16639 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO. 16639 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI MOHAN N
S/O NANDA KOMAR C
AGED MAJOR, 38, R/AT NAIDU NILAYA,
ST
1208 N.M.C., 1 CROSS, LEFT SIDE HOSAMANA
OLD TOWN, BHADRAVATHI-577301
SHIVAMOGGA
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SAPPANNAVAR BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. TARA H J
Di gitally W/O MOHAN N., AGED MAJOR,
signed by B
R/O NO. 9, SHYAM NILAYA, GROUND FLOOR
VEENA
1 MAIN, LAXMISAGAR LAYOUT,
KUMARI
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
Location:
HIGH COURT WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560048.
OF
KARNATAKA
2. RIDDHI NAIDU
D/O MOHAN N., AGED 6 YEARS,
MINOR, REP. BY MOTHER
R/O NO. 9, SHYAM NILAYA, GROUND FLOOR
1 MAIN, LAXMISAGAR LAYOUT,
MAHADEVAPURA POST WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560048.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDITA D HALDIPUR., ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49114
WP No. 16639 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.10.2023 AT ANNEXURE-D
PASSED ON I.A.NO.2 BY THE V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO.105/2019
AND TO DISMISS I.A.NO.2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS U/S
125(1) OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is filed challenging the order on
I.A.No.II dated 17.10.2023 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.105/2019 by the V Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru.
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:
Respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner.
Respondent No.2 is the daughter of the petitioner and
respondent No.1. The petitioner’s marriage was performed
with the respondent on 12.12.2013. Out of their wedlock,
they were blessed with a child, who is respondent No.2.
- 3 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49114
WP No. 16639 of 2024
The respondent No.1 was subjected to cruelty. The
petitioner neglected the respondents. The respondent
No.1 is unemployed and has no source of income to
maintaining herself and her daughter. The respondents
require at least Rs.45,000 p.m; for their livelihood. The
petitioner is working as a Security Analyst Senior in
Akamai Technologies India Company, earning a sum of
10,78,000/-.
Rs.81,667/- p.m. and also annual bonus of Rs.
The respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C, which is registered as Crl.Misc.No.105/2019. In
the said proceedings, the respondents filed an application
in I.A.No.II seeking interim maintenance. The said
application was allowed vide order dated 17.10.2023 and
awarded the interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m, to
respondent No.2 from the date of application. The
petitioner, aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.II dated
17.10.2023, passed in Crl.Misc.no.105/2019, filed this writ
petition.
- 4 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49114
WP No. 16639 of 2024
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
the interim maintenance granted to respondent No.2 is
exorbitant. He submits that, the respondent No.1 is a B.E
graduate and who is employed, and has a sufficient
income to support herself and her daughter. He submits
that, the petitioner has obtained a personal loan from Citi
Bank and a home loan. The petitioner has to repay the
loan amount. He submits that, the petitioner has filed a
petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in
M.C.No.4359/2019, but the respondent No.1 is unwilling to
join the petitioner's company. He submits that the
respondent No.1 can take care of respondent No.2 as she
has a sufficient source of income. He submits that,
respondents filed I.A.No.II with an intention to harass the
petitioner. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the
writ petition.
- 5 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49114
WP No. 16639 of 2024
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the petitioner is the father of respondent
No.2. He is under legal obligation to maintain his
daughter, and he should take care of her educational
expenses, etc. In the instant case, the petitioner is
avoiding legal obligation. She submits that, the trial Court
was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, on
these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.
6. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. There is no dispute in regard to the relationship
between the petitioner and respondents and also the
petitioner and respondents are residing separately.
Respondent No.1 has no source of income to support
herself and her daughter. The respondents filed a petition
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, seeking maintenance. The
respondents filed an application in I.A.No.II seeking
interim maintenance. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is
a B.E graduate and the petitioner is working as a Security
- 6 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49114
WP No. 16639 of 2024
Analyst Senior and drawing a salary of Rs.81,667/- p.m.
10,78,000/-,
and also annual bonus of Rs. Respondent
No.1 is an earning member. The petitioner, and
respondent No.1 are equally liable to take care of their
child by providing good education to respondent No.2.
The petitioner being the father is legally bound to maintain
his daughter i.e., respondent No.2, merely contending that
he has obtained a loan from various banks is not a ground
to deny the payment of maintenance. Considering the
income of both the petitioner and respondent No.1, the
trial Court was of the opinion that Rs.20,000/- p.m is
sufficient for the maintenance of Respondent No.2 as well
as educational expenses per month. Merely, the mother is
an earning member, that is not a ground for the petitioner
from escaping the liability. The respondent No.2 is about
6 years old. Considering the age and financial status of
the petitioner, and respondent No.1, the trial Court was
justified in awarding maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m, to
respondent No.2. It is the equal responsibility of the
father and mother to take care of their child. The trial
- 7 -
NC: 2024:KHC:49114
WP No. 16639 of 2024
Court, considering the material on record, was justified in
passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the
respondent has filed a memo of calculation wherein the
petitioner has not paid the arrears of maintenance. The
petitioner is due for a sum of Rs.5,40,000/-. The petitioner
is not regularly paying the interim maintenance. Hence, I
do not find any error in the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S.KINAGI)
JUDGE
SKS