- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32167 WP No. 17811 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17811 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR.SANDEEPA MANDEKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI.GOPINATH MANDEKAR, R/AT NO. 337, 4TH FLOOR, D.NO. 401, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BACKSIDE SHOBHA HYPER MARKER, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE – 560 092 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHANA CHANDRA P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.RAMYASHREE S., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, D/O SRI SURENDRA RAO, 2. MISS. HITIKSHA AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, D/O SANDEEP MANDEKAR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT.RAMYASHREE S., BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 130/7, OPP. GOVT SCHOOL, HOSAKEREHALLI, VEERABHADRA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.HITESH GOWDA B.J., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SANTHOSH U., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32167 WP No. 17811 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 03.05.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF IVTH ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE PARTLY ALLOWING I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER SECTION 125(1) (a) OF C.P.C BY THE RESPONDENTS IN CRL.MISC.NO.497/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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.III in Crl.Misc.No.497/2022 dated 03.05.2024 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had rejected the case of the wife and granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the wife is earning and though she is earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month, those facts were not disclosed and she has not filed the statement of assets and liabilities as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32167 WP No. 17811 of 2024 of Rajnesh Vs. Neha1. It is submitted that after deductions, the husband is getting salary of an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month and he has to take care of himself and the mother, who is dependent on him and he cannot pay maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the wife lost her job on 29.06.2024 and maintenance is granted to the child but not to the wife. In those circumstances, the income of the wife is not the decisive factor for granting maintenance. The Family Court had granted meager amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child. It is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The wife had sought for maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the child and an amount of Rs.50,000/- to the wife. Considering the fact that the wife is earning, the Family Court had not granted maintenance to the wife and granted maintenance of an 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32167 WP No. 17811 of 2024 amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the husband that the husband has to take care of his mother and after all deductions, he is getting salary of an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month and he has taken house for an amount of Rs.18,000/-, as such, he cannot pay the maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the child as ordered by the Family Court. This submission of the learned counsel for the husband cannot be considered. The wife has to take care of the child who is staying with her and an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month that is granted by the Family Court for the maintenance of the child is not exorbitant and it cannot be said that the husband cannot pay the said amount. Further, if the husband has to take care of his mother, he also has a responsibility to take care of the child and in the concerned opinion of this Court, there are no reasons to interfere with the order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32167 WP No. 17811 of 2024 ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45