- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29042 WP No. 33886 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 33886 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. PADMA PRIYA W/O RANGANATH. G, AGED ABOUT 36 YEAR, RESIDING AT: NO.348, GURU RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, 12TH A CROSS, BAHGYALAKSHMI TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560057 …PETITIONER (BY MS. RENY SEBASTIAN. ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. RANGANATH. G S/O GOVINDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT: S/O DHANPAL, NO.163, NEAR GOVERNMENT FAIR PRICE SHOP, CHANDRA MOULISHWARA TEMPLE ROAD, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU - 560090 ALSO AT RESIDING AT: S/O DHANPAL, NO 60, 2ND CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU - 560090 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT. ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29042 WP No. 33886 of 2024 12.11.2024 PASSED ON I.A NO. 5 BY THE HONBLE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGLAURU IN M.C.NO. 1103/2021 AT ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT THE RELIEF OF AS PRAYED IN THE APPLICATION (IA NO. 5). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on IA.No.5 in MC No.1103/2021 dated 12.11.2024 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the court had directed the husband to continue the lease without disturbing the accommodation of the respondent and others and also further directing the husband to pay the school expenses of the minor son, either directly to the school or reimburse the same on furnishing necessary receipts to the husband, the wife is before this court. 2. Both the parties are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of convenience. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29042 WP No. 33886 of 2024 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the family court had failed to grant maintenance to the wife and the husband is not paying the school fees of the child even after the order and before the order. Whether any amount has to be paid from the date of petition there is no clarity in the order. It is submitted that the family court ought to have granted maintenance to the wife and also there should have been a clear order with regard to the school fees. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order is very clear with regard to the payment of school fees and once the receipts are shown, the husband would be reimbursing the amount paid and he would be continuing to pay. It is submitted that the court had rightly considered the fact that both the wife and husband are earning and as such no maintenance is awarded to the wife. It is submitted that the wife is not entitled for any maintenance. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. As per the evidence on record, the wife's salary is Rs.33,700/- per month, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29042 WP No. 33886 of 2024 husband's salary is Rs.63,000/- per month. The family court had come to the conclusion that both of them are earning and wife is not entitled for maintenance. When it comes to the child, the family court had directed the husband to pay the school expenses of the minor son either directly to the school or reimburse the same on furnishing the necessary receipts to the respondent. When an order is passed, necessarily it has to be from the date of petition. From the date of petition if the wife has paid any of the school expenses, the same receipts has to be furnished to the husband, on such receipt of the same the husband has to reimburse the said amount. Hence, in the considered opinion of the court, there is no ambiguity in the order. The family court has also considered that the husband shall continue with the lease and admittedly for that he has paid an amount Rs.6,00,000/- as deposit. In that view of the matter except clarifying this issue, this court do not have any reasons to interfere with the order. 6. In the light of above discussion, this court is passing the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29042 WP No. 33886 of 2024 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. ii. Educational expenses that are borne by the wife from the date of the petition till now shall be reimbursed if not paid by the husband and he shall continue to pay the educational expenses. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 287