- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 20101 OF 2022 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BASAVARAJA S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AT POST SALGAR, TALUK AKKALKOT, DISTRICT SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-413216 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN N FOR ASHOK B PATIL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SHILPA W/O SHRI BASAVARAJA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, NO.13, 3RD FLOOR, 6TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT, BEGUR, BENGALURU-560068 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE V ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU ON IA.I IN Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 MC NO.336/2020(ANNEXURE-J) PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE,BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN MC NO.336/2020 AT ANNEXURE-P. APPLICATION U/S 151 CPC AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN MC NO.336/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL.SR.CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-J) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.I in MC.No.336/2020 dated 07.07.2021 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru whereby the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to the wife and also the order dated 02.08.2022 whereby the Family court had allowed the application filed under Section 151 of CPC by the wife to strike off the defence of the husband, the husband is before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 2. It is a case of the wife that the husband is having property worth Rs.2 crores which includes 15 acres of irrigation land and a house as well as good source of income from the irrigation land. 3. The husband has filed his objections stating that the IA is not maintainable. It is his case that she is employed and earning handsome salary and she is capable of maintaining herself. The wife had filed her expenses and stated that she needs an amount of Rs.60,000/- per month and it is more than her salary. He is working as agricultural labourer and he owns 1 acre of wet land and 2.5 acres of dry land. He is capable of maintaining the family out of the income derived by him and the said land is ancestral and joint family property. 4. The Family Court had considered the contention of both the parties and observed that the wife is an educated and a working woman. She has come up with this application seeking maintenance and the Family Court has to consider the case from both sides. Wherein, the wife is not completely dependent on the respondent. However, in order to show that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 she has low income and she is unable to maintain herself there are no documents available on record and only the oral statements stated to be the supportive evidence for the alleged act of the respondent. Hence, without holding a mini trial and looking at the facts and circumstances of the case, the Family Court is of the view that the wife herself stated that she is unable to maintain herself and she has to pay for her educational loan, house rent, and other expenses including the litigation expenses. Accordingly, the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that when the wife is working and the husband is an agriculturist, the Family Court ought not to have granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month. There is nothing on record to show what is the income that is derived from the agricultural land. It is stated that he is working as a daily labourer. It is submitted that the wife is not entitled for any maintenance when she is capable of earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. He submitted that the Family Court had allowed an application filed by the wife under 151 to strike - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 off the defence of the husband. It is submitted that when already an application is filed by the petitioner/husband seeking certain documents and without considering that application this order came to be passed, which is not justified and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the petitioner/husband had suppressed the facts about the properties that he is owning and Family Court considering all this had rightly granted the maintenance and there are no grounds to interfere. It is also submitted that when there is an order of maintenance passed by the Family court and when the husband has failed to comply with the said order, the Family court had rightly passed an order striking off the defence and there is nothing to interfere with the order. It is also submitted that the parties are related and if the order is set aside it would come in the way of the wife in claiming the inheritance in the ancestral properties. Under the guise of the interim orders passed by this Court they are not proceeding with the matter. Hence, there shall be a direction to the Family Court to dispose of the matter. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the aspect of maintenance, the wife is earning. She is a software engineer earning an amount of Rs.58,000/- per month. According to her husband is having lot of ancestral properties and he is deriving lot of income out of that. There is no evidence on record to show what is the income of the husband from the said properties. When the wife has failed to prove what is the income of the husband and when it is the case of the husband that he is a daily wage worker and when the wife is earning an amount of Rs.50,000/- she cannot seek maintenance from the husband and without any basis. The Court cannot grant maintenance to the wife. In the considered opinion of the court, the order impugned in IA No.1 whereby the maintenance of an amount of Rs.8,000/- is granted is contrary to the facts and law. 8. Coming to the application filed under Section 151 of the CPC to strike off the defence of the husband is concerned, the Family Court was perfectly right in allowing the application. Whatever are the reasons, when an order is passed by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 Court it is the duty of the parties to comply with the order. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner/husband is that the he has already filed another application and the same is pending consideration. In view of the same, the Family Court ought not to have passed this order under 151 CPC has no legs to stand. The Family Court is perfectly right in passing the order. Further, with regard to the wife's submission that setting aside this order would come in the way of the wife in claiming inheritance in the maternal side ancestral properties. This Court finds no force in the argument, as this has nothing to do with that she will get if at all she has a right of succession in the said property. In light of the facts and circumstances, this Court is setting aside the order passed on maintenance, this Court has to necessarily set aside the order passed under 151 CPC however on costs. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.No.I in MC.No.336/2020 dated 07.07.2021 by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34751 WP No. 20101 of 2022 ii. The order passed under Section 151 dated 02.08.2022 is set aside on the condition that the petitioner/husband shall pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the wife within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii. The MC shall be disposed of by the Family Court by 15.12.2025. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. v. All I.As. in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ