- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34754 WP No. 6247 of 2023 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. 6247 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI T V VIKAS S/O LATE T S VIJAYKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDENT OF SHAMBHAVI NILAYA, 8TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI NAGARA, NEAR RAILWAY TRACK, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHWANATH NETHAJI N.T, FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: KUMARI THANUSHREE AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, D/O T V VIKAS, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT T S GAYITHRI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O T V VIKAS, RESIDING AT SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, BEHIND WESTERN EXTENSION SCHOOL, AGRAHARA, TUMKUR TOWN , TUMKURU- 572101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMKUR IN CRL MISC NO.94/2022 DTD 27.09.2022 ON IA. NO.II IN ALLOWING THE Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34754 WP No. 6247 of 2023 APPLICATION IN PART FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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.II in Crl.Misc.No.94/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the child. The father is before this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that he has filed the MC seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty. It is his case that the wife had left the husband on 05.06.2019 and the date of birth of the child is 03.06.2020 which on the face of it is clear that the petitioner is not the biological father of the child and as such he has no obligation to pay the maintenance. The Family Court had failed to consider this aspect and in fact he has filed an application before the Family Court to conduct the DNA test and the same is pending - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34754 WP No. 6247 of 2023 consideration. It is submitted that till the said application is considered the respondent is not entitled for maintenance. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that wife is ready for the DNA test. Even before the Family Court also it is submitted that the DNA test may be conducted. Further, they have filed a memo seeking educational expenses of the child. That may be considered. He submits that unless and until the said application is decided the petitioner cannot seek any relief on the ground that he is not the biological father of the child. 4. Having heard the learned counsels on either side. Perused the material on record. With regard to the paternity of the child considering the disputed questions of fact, the Family Court cannot decide in summary proceedings under 125 CrPC. Admittedly, the MC is pending before the Family Court and already an application is filed in those proceedings. Further, the memo that is filed by the wife seeking enhancement of the compensation, this Court cannot consider the memo that is filed before this Court in the writ petition filed by the husband. In that view of the matter, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34754 WP No. 6247 of 2023 is awarded by the Family court, this court is not inclined to interfere. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All I.As pending in the writ petition stands closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ