- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35703 WP No. 16711 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16711 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAVI S/O. LATE VARADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.18, 9TH BLOCK, JARAKABANDE KAVAL, POLICE QUARTERS, KRISHNANANDA NAGAR, BEHIND RAKSHA HOSPITAL, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASANNA V R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHWETHA B S W/O. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, DEEVEERAMMA BUILDING, KAMALANAGAR, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35703 WP No. 16711 of 2024 BENGALURU-560079. 2. MASTER LIKITH.R S/O. RAVI, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, MINOR REP. BY HIS GUARDIAN MOTHER, SMT. SHWETHA B.S. R/AT NO.4, DEEVEERAMMA BUILDING, KAMALANAGAR, BENGALURU-560079. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA K., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 13.05.24 ON IA NO. 2 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 50/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU , VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35703 WP No. 16711 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.50/2021 dated 13.05.2024 by the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards the educational expenses of the child, the husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the wife had filed I.A.No.2 seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to herself and to the son. It is her case that the husband is working as a head constable and earning sufficient income. In spite of the same, he is not maintaining the family. It is the case of the husband that wife is a B.Sc. graduate and certified fashion designer and drawing salary of an amount of Rs.30,000/-. The Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards educational expenses of the son. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35703 WP No. 16711 of 2024 4. While granting the maintenance, the Family Court had observed that the wife in her affidavit of assets and liabilities has not shown her educational qualification. She has shown that she is residing in her parents9 house. In the affidavit also she has shown the salary of the husband as Rs.60,000/- per month. The husband in his affidavit of assets and liabilities has shown his qualification as B.A. and his general monthly expenses are shown as Rs.50,000/-. He has also shown his gross salary as Rs.51,259/- and take home salary at Rs.25,420/-. He has also shown that he is paying EMI of Rs.10,500/- and also placed his pay slip. The Family Court had considered the fact that the child is now aged below 10 years and the amount of Rs.20,000/- that is claimed by the wife is on the higher side and it is the duty of the husband to take care of his wife and the child. Accordingly, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards the educational expenses of the child. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband submits that when the take home salary of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35703 WP No. 16711 of 2024 husband is Rs.25,420/-, the Family Court ought not to have granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards the maintenance which is on the higher side. It is submitted that the Family Court had failed to consider the fact that the wife is educated and she is capable of earning and in fact, she is earning and she has suppressed all these facts. It is further submitted that when the husband had filed the petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, the wife had filed a counter claim for divorce and also filed this petition seeking maintenance. It is submitted that the wife who is capable of earning and is not entitled for maintenance. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that though she did her B.Sc. and certification course in Fashion Technology, she is not able to get a job and in fact she is even trying hard only with the help and assistance from her parents she is able to maintain the child. Learned counsel further submits that it is the duty of the father to take care of the child and as a husband, it is his duty to take care of the wife and the Family Court had rightly granted the maintenance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35703 WP No. 16711 of 2024 and there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Admittedly, the income of the petitioner/husband is Rs.51,259/-. He has shown that he is paying EMI of Rs.10,500/- and after other deductions, his take home salary is Rs.25,420/-. Considering the fact that the wife is not working and the wife and child has to live and she also has to take care of the educational expenses of the child. The Family Court had granted the maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.5,000/- per month towards educational expenses. When the wife is capable of earning, she is not earning and in spite of the best efforts, she is not able to get the job, on the ground that she is educated, the Courts will not refuse to grant the maintenance to the wife. During the pendency of the proceedings it is the duty of the husband to take care of the needs of the wife and the amount already that is granted is not an exorbitant amount. The Family Court had granted only 25% of his salary towards the maintenance of the wife and the child. In that view of the matter, this Court do not - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35703 WP No. 16711 of 2024 find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22