Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 56831 (KAR)

SRI. ANIL J.D. v. SMT. T.G. MANASA

WP/12335/2023 · 2025-08-05

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30426 WP No. 12335 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 12335 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. ANIL J.D., S/O. JAYADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.16, 5TH CROSS, NEAR BLUE BELL, ANUBHAVANAGARA, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU -560 100. …PETITIONER (BY MS. SNEHA .R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR G.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. T.G. MANASA, D/O THIPPESWAMY, W/O ANIL .J.D., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. BABY SMRITHI, D/O. ANIL J.D., AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, REPRESENTED THROUGH HER MOTHER MRS. T.G. MANASA, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT EWS, MANASA NIVASA, I MAIN, 8TH CROSS, KENGERI UPANAGARA, BENGALURU – 560 060. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARAN. N. MAJAGE, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30426 WP No. 12335 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 10.02.2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.216/2022 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-E, PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU, ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS. 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 on an interim application seeking maintenance in Crl.Misc.No.216/2022 dated 10.02.2023 by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards the general expenses of the child and directed the father to pay 60% of the total educational expenses and the remaining 40% of the further general and educational expenses are to be borne by the mother, the father is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as father and mother for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30426 WP No. 12335 of 2023 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father submits that the Family Court had already directed the father to bear 60% of educational expenses, but the Family Court ought not to have granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month to the child. It is submitted that the same is on the higher side and that needs to be modified. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ mother submits that as on the date, the husband is getting salary of an amount of Rs.1,19,000/- per month and the take home salary is Rs.1,00,212/- per month. The salary of the wife is Rs.50,000/- per month. The wife is earning only half of what her husband is earning and considering the same, the Family Court had directed the husband to bear 60% of the educational expenses and the remaining 40% to be borne by the wife, as the wife is taking care of the child, she is a working mother, she has other expenses to take care of the child, she requires a maid help and the Family Court had rightly considered and rightly granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and there are no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30426 WP No. 12335 of 2023 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The undisputed facts are that as on the day when the statement of assets and liabilities are filed, the take home salary of the husband is Rs.1,00,212/- and the salary of the wife is Rs.50,000/-. The wife is also a working lady and she has to take care of the child, who is aged as of now 7 years. As on that day, he was 4 years old and the mother requires help to take care of the child apart from other expenses. Considering the income of the father of an amount of Rs.1,00,212/- per month, the Family Court had rightly passed an order with regard to the general expenses as well as the educational expenses and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: ORDER i. In this writ petition, there is an interim order whereby the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the minor daughter as an interim measure, the remaining Rs.5,000/- and the arrears, if any, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30426 WP No. 12335 of 2023 shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42