- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46469 WP No. 34037 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 34037 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI SHYAM SUNDAR K S/O SRI LATE A R KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O NO.66/B, BEST COUNTY-2, 1ST MAIN, NEAR SAMBHRAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, M.S PALYA, VIDYARANAYAPURA, BENGALURU - 560097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUMANTH L BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SNEHA W/O SRI SHYAM SUNDAR K, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46469 WP No. 34037 of 2025 R/O NO.86/35, 17TH MAIN, BSK 1ST STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560050. …RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17/09/2025 THAT PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN M.C.NO.2875 OF 2024, ON THREE INTERIM APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NUMBERED AS I.A.NO.5, SEEKING INTERIM MAINTENANCE, EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES AND THE LIGATION EXPENSES, RESPECTIVELY. A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS HEREWITH SUBMITTED AS ANNEXURES – J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46469 WP No. 34037 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.No.5 in MC.No.2875/2024 dated 17.09.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the husband is before this court. 2. Both the parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The wife had filed I.A.No.5 under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- per month to herself and the child, I.A.No.6 is filed seeking litigation expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- and I.A.No.7 is filed praying for an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of the child. The Family Court by order impugned had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the wife and the child. Further directed to pay Rs.1,20,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of the child and Rs.50,000/- towards the litigation expenses. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that though his salary is Rs.3,36,000/-, he had lost his father and he has spent huge amounts towards his medical - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46469 WP No. 34037 of 2025 expenses. Further he has to bear his personal expenses and tax deductions. It is submitted that the wife is a B.E. graduate. In spite of having a qualification, she is not working. The Family Court in the order observed that it is the responsibility of both the parents to take care of the children and what is the contribution of the wife is not forthcoming in the order. It is submitted that she has initiated the judicial proceedings and granting Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses is not correct. It is submitted that the amount that is granted as maintenance to the wife and child needs to be reduced. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The salary of the husband is Rs.3,36,000/-. Though the wife is a B.E. Graduate she is not earning. The family court had granted an amount of Rs.30,000/-, towards maintenance of wife and child, Rs.1,20,000/- towards educational expenses per annum and Rs.50,000/- litigation expenses. The amount granted by the Family Court is a reasonable amount and it is not even 10% of the salary of the husband. If both the husband and wife are earning, then in that case both have to contribute equally for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46469 WP No. 34037 of 2025 the maintenance of the child, but here it is the case where wife is not earning. The submission that the litigation was initiated by the wife and the petitioner/husband is not liable to pay the litigation expenses has no legs to stand and that is not the purport of the provision. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the view that the Family Court had passed reasoned order and it requires no interference from this Court. 6. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30