- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42264 WP No. 32007 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 32007 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJASHEKHARAIAH S/O. LATE. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT KODIHALLI VILLAGE KESTUR POST, KORA HOBLI- 572 138 TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH V.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAMATHA W/O. RAJASHEKHARAIAH D/O. ADAVEESHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT. HONASIGERE VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI-572122. TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 2. KUM. PALLAVI D/O. RAJASHEKHARAIAH Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42264 WP No. 32007 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REP. BY HER MOTHER MAMATHA AS NATURAL GUARDIAN R/AT. HONASIGERE VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI-572122. TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2025, PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT TUMAKURU, PASSED TO REJECT THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER, IN C.MISC NO.67/2024, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTION 18(2) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1984 R/W. SECTION 128 OF CRPC 1973, VIDE ANNEXURE-G. THEREBY ALLOW THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42264 WP No. 32007 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed on memo dated 16.07.2025 in C.Misc.No.67/2024 dated 04.10.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, whereby the memo filed by the petitioner to keep the petition in abeyance till disposal of Crl.Misc.No.53/2025 filed by him for cancellation of maintenance order was rejected. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The facts of the case are that the wife and the daughter had filed Crl.Misc.No.378/2013 seeking maintenance and the same was dismissed on 20.08.2016. Then the wife had preferred RPFC.No.192/2016 before this Court and the same was allowed on 13.02.2024 directing the husband to pay monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the wife till her lifetime or till she remarries and Rs.5,000/- to the daughter till her marriage and further observed that if the husband succeeds in proving that he is not the biological father, then he is at liberty to file an application for modification of the order. There is a partition suit pending in O.S.No.36/2013 on the file - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42264 WP No. 32007 of 2025 of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge at Tumkuru, wherein the husband is arrayed as defendant No.5 and the wife and daughter were impleaded as defendant Nos.8 and 10. During the pendency of the said suit, the husband filed an application for DNA test and the same was allowed. As per the DNA test report, the husband is not the biological father of petitioner No.2. Hence, as per the directions issued by this Court in RPFC.No.192/2016 dated 13.02.2024, husband had filed Crl.Misc.No.53/2025 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. in the month of September 2025. When the wife had filed the execution petition, the husband filed the memo to keep the petition in abeyance till disposal of Crl.Misc.No.53/2025 filed by him and it came to be rejected by way of order impugned. 4. While rejecting the memo, the Family Court had observed that the DNA test report obtained in O.S.No.36/2013 is not yet considered in the suit and it has not attained finality and there is no finding in that regard. In those circumstances, the Family Court cannot keep the recovery proceedings in abeyance. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42264 WP No. 32007 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that when the DNA test, which is a scientific report states that he is not the biological father of petitioner No.2/ daughter, the question of paying the maintenance to the daughter does not arise. It is submitted that if he pays the amount, it will be difficult for him to recover the amount. It is submitted that the Family Court ought to have allowed the memo and by keeping the proceedings in abeyance. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The order passed by this Court in RPFC.No.192/2016 is dated 13.02.2024 and the petition seeking to modify the order on DNA test is filed in the month of September 2025. Right from 13.02.2024 till September 2025, the husband had kept quiet and the wife had filed the execution petition. Now, conveniently, the memo is filed to keep the petition in abeyance. The executing Court had rightly rejected the memo filed by the husband. When he had obtained an order in the year 2024, till now, he kept quiet without paying any amount. Till further orders are passed, he is obligated to comply with the orders of this Court in RPFC. At one stretch, he wants an order from the Court and basing on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42264 WP No. 32007 of 2025 the order of the Court, he filed a memo. When the same order directs him to pay maintenance the husband has failed to complied with it. This kind of an approach from the litigant cannot be appreciated and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6