- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38391 WP No. 1469 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 1469 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. G. N. PAVITHRA W/O. GAJENDRA KUMAR. A. S., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO. 60, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA, T.R. MILL ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE - 560 018. 2. KUM. SAMARTH. G S/O. GAJENDRA KUMAR. A. S., AGED ABOUT 06 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER, SMT. PAVITHRA. G. N ., W/O. GAJENDRA KUMAR A. S., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. 60, RAMACHANDRA AGRAHARA, T. R. MILL ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, BANGALORE - 560 018. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. POONAM S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. GAJENDRA KUMAR A. S. S/O. LATE SADASHIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT C/O. SAVITRAMMA, 4TH ROAD, 5TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGARA EAST, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38391 WP No. 1469 of 2024 TUMAKURU - 572 102. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH M.C, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16/10/2023 IN C.MISC.NO.625/2017 PASSED BY THE HONBLE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN IA NO. II FILED U/S 125(1) OF CR.PC 1973 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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.625/2021 dated 16.10.2023 by the IV Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru whereby the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- as maintenance to the son, the mother and child are before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. The wife and son have filed an application under Section 125(1) of CrPC for grant of interim maintenance of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38391 WP No. 1469 of 2024 Rs.25,000/- each per month and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-, pending disposal of the petition. 3. It is the case of the wife that the her income is an amount of Rs.32,000/- per month and the income of the husband is an amount of Rs.34,000/-. The Family Court basing on the statements has held that her salary is Rs.48,247/- which is varying at Rs.45,000/- and Rs.48,000/- and basing on that the Family Court has held that she is not entitled for maintenance and maintenance of Rs.5,000/- was granted to the child. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the wife has placed before this court the Income Tax returns which were obtained under the Right to Information Act wherein the income of the husband is shown as Rs.13,20,000 per annum. When these statements were placed before the Court, this court has asked the husband to file his affidavit. Now, the affidavit is filed stating that his salary is 13,00,000/- per annum and an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is deducted towards the taxes and he has taken loan, some more amount is deducted towards loan as such he has stated before the Family Court that his income is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38391 WP No. 1469 of 2024 Rs.34,000/- and during the course of argument he submits that the wife's salary is Rs.8,55,000/- and she has suppressed the same. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits the she has placed the bank statement on record and the Court has also observed that her salary is Rs.44,000/- to Rs.48,000/-. It is submitted that the needs of the child has to be taken care and the husband has to pay the maintenance. 6. Having heard learned counsels on either side, perused the materials on record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment of 1Rajnesh Vs. Neha, considering several challenges in deciding the maintenance cases, had passed a detailed Judgment regarding what are the documents that needs to be filed before the court and what are the consequences of suppressing the material facts before the court. This is one classic case where both the parties have come before the Court with suppression and misrepresentation of the facts. Prima facie it appears basing on the evidence on record. What is the income of the parties, what is the gross 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38391 WP No. 1469 of 2024 salary, what is his net salary has to be stated before the Court in the statement of Assets and Liabilities. Both the parties have conveniently stated that Rs.34,000/- and Rs.32,000/- is their income. But as per the income tax returns, their yearly income is Rs.8,55,000/- and Rs.13,00,000/-. The Courts cannot be a mute spectators to this kind of an approach and attitude on behalf of the litigants. This is a fit case where the Court has to conduct a thorough enquiry into these facts by giving an opportunity to both the parties and find out whether there is any suppression or misrepresentation of facts. If it is, the Court shall initiate appropriate proceedings against the concern. 7. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A.No.II in Crl.Misc.No.625/2021 dated 16.10.2023 by the IV Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside. The matter is remand back to the Family Court. ii. The Family Court after conducting a thorough enquiry about the suppression of facts, if there is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38391 WP No. 1469 of 2024 suppression and misrepresentation the Family Court shall initiate appropriate action against the concerned. iii. The Family Court, by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties shall decide about the misrepresentation within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iv. All the documents that were placed before this court shall be sent to the trial court. v. The writ petition is disposed of. vi. Pending I.As. if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE RJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK