- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 23434 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI SANJEEV KUMAR G., S/O. GUNASEGARAN.C., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KALAGHATGI, JUDICIAL OFFICERS QUARTERS, KALAGHATGI, KARWAR ROAD, OPPOSITE TO COURT COMPLEX, KALAGHATGI, DHARWAD-588 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHI KUMAR G., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ANITHA KUMARI, W/O. SRI. SANJEEV KUMAR. G, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PERMANENTLY R/AT NO. 371/28, BEHIND KPTCL, 23RD WARD LAND MARK, SLN FLOOR MILL, CHAMARAJPET, CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.YASHWANTH NETHAJI N.T., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 25.06.2025 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKABALLAPUR ON THE FILE OF M.C.NO. 57/2023. Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 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.Nos.10 and 11 in M.C.No.57/2023 dated 25.06.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chikkaballapura, whereby the Family Court had dismissed I.A.No.11 filed by the husband under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC and partly allowed I.A.No.10 filed by the wife by granting maintenance of an amount Rs.25,000/- per month. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the husband had filed M.C.No.57/2023 seeking divorce. In that, the wife had filed I.A.No.10 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month and the husband had filed I.A.No.11 under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC seeking certain interrogatories. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 4. The Family Court while granting the maintenance had observed that the husband is a Judicial Officer and earning an amount of Rs.1,29,052/-. According to him, he is spending an amount of Rs.70,000/- towards medical expenses of his mother and he is paying an amount of Rs.57,580/- per month towards the loan and the total amount comes to an amount of Rs.1,37,580/- which is more than his net salary. This itself establishes that the husband has not provided the correct details with regard to the expenses of his mother towards medication. The husband had produced his bank statement at later stage. As per the said bank statement, he is having sufficient bank balance of more than Rs.7,00,000/- in his SBI bank account. Further, the Family Court had observed that just because the wife has done her M.Tech degree will not automatically lead to the presumption that she is purposefully refraining from employment solely to secure interim maintenance and the Family Court felt that the said submission has no force. The Family Court had further observed that the wife is getting income from rice mill and various other sources. It is the submission of the husband that the wife is getting income from rice mill and various other sources to an extent of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 Rs.2,00,000/-. The Family Court considering the expenses and considering the salary of the husband has come to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month would meet the ends of justice. It is further observed that the husband has not made out any grounds to consider his application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC to grant the leave of the Court seeking answer for his interrogatories and the same is not necessary for adjudication of the controversy of the main petition and accordingly, dismissed the application. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ husband submits that the Family Court had failed to adhere to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajneesh Vs. Neha1. When he had filed I.A.No.11 seeking certain interrogatories with regard to the income of the wife from the rice mill and other things which the party is entitled to, the Family Court, without considering all that, had dismissed the application. It is further submitted that the wife had come to the Court with suppression and misrepresentation of facts and when the party comes before the Court with suppression, she is not entitled for any relief from the Court. 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 Further, the wife is a M.Tech post graduate and she cannot say that she is not able to work and she is not having any income. It is submitted that her account shows that she is getting amounts from the rice mill regularly which shows that she is having a source of income. Apart from that she has the Demat account which also shows her different source of income. When she is having a source of income and when she is a post graduate, she cannot claim any maintenance from the husband. In the light of the settled law, considering her income and considering her qualification, she is not entitled for maintenance. It is submitted that the maintenance amount that is granted at Rs.25,000/- is on the higher side. It is further submitted that dismissing the application filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC is also contrary to law and the order impugned needs to be set aside. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that this Court on 21.08.2025 had passed an order directing the learned counsel to get instructions by the next date of hearing as to why the wife is not working being a M.Tech., graduate and the marriage has lasted for only two months. The bank statement and Demat accounts are placed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 before this Court by the husband. Why these facts were not disclosed before the Family Court and why the amount is deposited in her account from the SLN Floor Mill has to be submitted before this Court. Learned counsel submits that as per the order passed by this Court, he has filed a memo before this Court stating that the brother of the respondent/wife is a proprietor. It is a proprietary concern and he has placed before this Court the licenses that were granted right from the year 2021. He says that from 06.04.2023 to 06.08.2024 a sum of Rs.65,000/- is transferred to the account of the wife. It is submitted that she has lost both her parents and considering the plight of the wife, her brother is helping her. Further, she has taken loan for her studies and as she is unable to pay the said amount, the bank is repeatedly issuing the notices. Those notices are also placed before this Court. It is submitted that there is no suppression and misrepresentation of facts. In fact, all the documents that were placed before this Court by the petitioner/husband are in fact the documents that are placed by the wife before the Family Court in the statement of assets and liabilities. The Family Court has also made a mention about the contention that the wife is receiving the income from the rice - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 mill and also about the Demat account. The details are also placed by the wife. Learned counsel submits that there is no suppression of facts. It is submitted that the wife had no PhD. was working as a guest lecturer and after marriage she stopped working at the instance of the husband. Further, though the marriage lasted for 3 months. After that because of the stress and the fact that she is residing at Chikkaballapur, opportunities were not available as such she could not work. It is submitted that the Family Court considering the salary of Rs.1,29,052/- had rightly granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the wife and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. 7. In response to that, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the documents filed regarding the fact that the rice mill is a proprietary concern and all other things, for the first time they have placed before this Court, which are not placed before the Family Court and the veracity of those documents can only be tested before the Family Court. It is submitted that they cannot be taken on its face value and he again reiterates the submission that she is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 having sufficient sources of income and she has suppressed all these facts. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The husband had filed the M.C. seeking divorce. Undisputedly, the marriage lasted for a period of three months. The husband is a Judicial Officer and the wife is a M.Tech post graduate. The wife had sought for maintenance of an amount of Rs.50,000/- per month. The Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is an undisputed fact that the income of the husband is Rs.1,29,052/-. In that, according to the husband, he is taking care of his mother and spending Rs.70,000/- and he is also paying Rs.57,580/- towards his loan. On this particular aspect, the Family Court has already given a finding that if that is what he is spending, it would come to Rs.1,37,580/- and it will be more than his net salary. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is suppression and misrepresentation of facts and certain documents were not produced. When he had filed an application i.e., I.A.No.11, the Family Court ought to have called for the said documents that is contrary to the purport of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajneesh’s case referred supra. When an I.A. is filed seeking interim maintenance, at that stage, the evidence on record is that the husband is earning and according to the husband, certain amounts are coming to the wife’s account from a particular rice mill and she is having Demat account. Entire details of the Demat account are before this Court and it shows that there are no profits from the said share trading business she is doing. The Family Court in the I.A.No.11 had observed that there are no reasons for the Court as he has not made out the grounds to consider the application under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC., as such documents are not necessary to decide the controversy between the parties. Even if somebody is helping her on and off, that itself will not absolve the husband from the obligation of maintaining the wife. However, this Court finds some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that wife being a M.Tech post graduate is not working. The reasons that are stated by the learned counsel for the respondent/wife are not satisfactory and when the marriage has lasted for three months and this is in the year 2023, almost after 2½ years if the same reason persists and on that reason if she is not - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 working it appears that this cannot be a reason for the wife not to work and forever on this reason she cannot sit at home and will depend upon the husband. What are the efforts made by the wife to secure a job, nothing has been placed before this Court. When she was able to work as a guest lecturer earlier, without having a PhD., without having any other additional qualifications why she is not able to get the same job is not known. All said and done the fact remains is that she is not having the regular income for herself. She is being supported by her brother or somebody else and from the Demat account, though she is doing it shows that, it is not so far lucrative or profitable for her. In these circumstances, the wife is entitled for maintenance from the husband. However, it has to be for a period of six months from the date of application. For another 6 months from the date of this order, the wife can have the maintenance. After 6 months, the husband can always file an application to review this order and by that time, the wife has to place sufficient material before the Family Court to show what are the efforts made by her to secure a job and why she could not secure the job. Basing on that further orders would be passed. At this point of time, when the husband's net salary - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 is Rs.1,29,052/-, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- and this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the same. This Court is not inclined to interfere with I.A.No.10 i.e., the order of maintenance granted i.e., an amount of Rs.25,000/- and also dismissal of an application i.e., I.A.No.11 which is filed under Order 11 Rule 1 of CPC. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. It is clarified that the order of maintenance is from the date of application and it should continue for another 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii. After 6 months, the petitioner/husband is at liberty to file an application seeking review of this order. By that time, the wife should make all efforts to secure a job or she shall place the necessary material before the Family Court with regard to the efforts made by her to secure the job and basing on such material, the Family Court has to pass appropriate order. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34109 WP No. 23434 of 2025 iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4