- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51654 WP No. 34671 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 34671 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MRS. DIVYA SHIVANKUTTY PILLAI W/O. VARUN GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO.50, 3RD FLOOR S.V.MANSION OPP. ADARSHA VISTA VIGNANA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 075 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BINDU U., ADVOCATE) AND: VARUN GOPINATH S/O. KODANKIL GOPINATH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KODANKIL MEKKAT HOUSE 69/B, VELLAKAD PO ERUMAPETTY Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51654 WP No. 34671 of 2025 THRISSUR KERALA - 680 584 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SWASTIK SAI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NITIN A.M., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 ON IA NO. 2 AND 3 IN MC NO. 5978/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VITH ADDL. RPL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW IA NO. 2 AND 3 AS PRAYED BEFORE TRIAL COURT AND ETC. 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:51654 WP No. 34671 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. Nos.2 and 3 in M.C. No.5978/2023 dated 16.09.2025 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/wife is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The wife has filed I.A. No.2 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking maintenance pendente lite of Rs.75,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.2,00,000/-. I.A. No.3 was filed under Section 19 read with Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking residence order directing the husband to secure accommodation for the wife, as enjoyed by her in the same household and to pay the rent for the same. 4. The Family Court had dismissed both the applications. While dismissing the said applications, the Family Court narrated the facts that are stated in the respective petitions and further observed that the husband and the wife - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51654 WP No. 34671 of 2025 have furnished their affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities. In his affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, the husband has stated that he has studied MBA and he is presently residing in Canada. He has further stated that he is unemployed and is working as Uber driver in Canada, earning 2,500 dollar per month. In her affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, the wife has stated that she did M.F.A. in Bharatanatyam and M.Sc. in Psychology. She has further stated that she is presently residing at her parental home in Bengaluru. The material on record discloses that the husband had initially filed the petition in the State of Kerala and, based on the petition filed by the wife, the same has been transferred from Kerala to Bengaluru. In the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the Court is of the opinion that, at this juncture, the wife is not entitled to maintenance pendente lite or litigation expenses. Insofar as the prayer for a residence order is concerned, in view of the dismissal of I.A. No.2, I.A. No.3 also stands dismissed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that the impugned order is not a well-reasoned order. There is no reasons in the order as to why the Family Court has not granted the maintenance to the wife. It is submitted that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51654 WP No. 34671 of 2025 the wife is not in a position to maintain herself and it is the duty of the husband to provide maintenance to the wife. It is further submitted that the impugned order is bereft of reasons and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that though the wife is well-educated. In spite of the same, she is not working. Considering the said aspect, the Family Court had rightly dismissed the applications and no grounds are made out to interfere. 7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the materials on record. Two applications were filed before the Family Court one seeking interim maintenance and the other seeking a residence order. Both parties have placed their respective pleadings as well as affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities on record. The Family Court was required to consider the applications based on the evidence available on record. This Court has perused the impugned order, as rightly argued by the counsel appearing for the petitioner, the order is bereft of reasons. The Family Court, without assigning any reasons had dismissed the applications, which needs - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51654 WP No. 34671 of 2025 interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order passed in I.A. Nos.2 and 3 in MC No.5978/2023 dated 16.09.2023 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. ii. The Family Court shall pass a reasoned order after providing an opportunity to both parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iv. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46