- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32806 WP No. 9859 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 9859 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MARTIN MATHEW S/O KL MATHEW AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO. NO 419, SRIVARI ILLAM, FLAT 3B, THIRD CROSS, KRC ROAD, DODDAGUBBI, KOTHANUR-560 077. …PETITIONER (BY MR. MENTO ISAC., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHILPI PRASAD W/O MARTIN MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. MISS NIA MARTIN D/O MARTIN MATHEW AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN 3. MISS SAMAIRA MARTIN D/O MARTIN MATHEW AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS REP. BY MOTHER GUARDIAN ALL ARE R/AT V 1604, MANTRI WEB CITY, KOTHANUR, HENNUR, BENGALURU-560 077. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32806 WP No. 9859 of 2026 (BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT., ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 02.12.2025 ON IA NO. 2 PASSED BY THE LD.I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN CRL. MISC. 742/2023 MARKED AS ANNX-A AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY ON THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 02.12.2025 ON I.A NO.2 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN CRL. MISC.742/2023 MARKED AS ANNX-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A. No.II in Criminal Miscellaneous No.742 of 2023. 2. I.A.II was filed before the Family Court by respondent-wife herein for the grant of interim maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month to the children i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, who are aged 6 and 3 respectively. It was stated in the I.A. that petitioner-husband was a qualified MBA graduate working in USA in Milestone Incorporation and earning Rs.14,00,000/- per annum and respondent No.1-wife was also - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32806 WP No. 9859 of 2026 Regional Director of South Asia in a reputed company namely U.K. India Business Council India Pvt. Ltd. and her salary was Rs.27,51,480/- per annum. 3. In the said I.A., the petitioner-husband filed his affidavit of assets and liabilities stating that he was also MBA graduate and his monthly expenses were Rs.1,05,500/- and getting a salary of Rs.1,04,403/- and he was working in Milestone Internet as Customer Service Manager and he filed bank statement. He mainly contended that the income of his respondent-wife was more than his income and she was capable of maintaining herself. Both children are their children. Therefore, the Family Court by its order directed the petitioner- husband to pay 50% of educational expenses including tuition and extra curricular activities fees. The Family Court also directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month to each of the children. It is further directed to pay the arrears in 90 days of the said order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has contended that, recently, the petitioner herein lost his employment. Respondent No.1-wife has filed G & WC No.326 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32806 WP No. 9859 of 2026 of 2023 for custody of the children, and she also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.233 of 2023 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner-husband stated that he separated from respondent-wife in the year 2022 and later, multiple proceedings were initiated between both of them. He further stated that Family Court has not considered his income which is on lower side. Now respondent-wife is capable of maintaining the children and she has several sources of income apart from the salary, but she has not disclosed the same in her application and husband gave the details of it from serial number 1 to 90. The learned counsel further stated that educational expenses are excessive and as such, the children should be joined in a normal school where both can afford to pay and to give same quality of education. The Family Court erred in considering the financial status of parties. Respondent-wife is residing in a self-acquired property. He was not informed or involved in the decision making process regarding selection of the school or financial implications. It is stated that both the parties are residing separately since four years and thus, he requested the Court to set aside the order of the Family Court passed in I.A. No.II. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32806 WP No. 9859 of 2026 5. Learned counsel for the respondents-wife has filed the statement of arrears, which shows that the petitioner herein has paid only Rs.1,50,000/- as on today and the arrears are yet to be paid. 6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 7. Admittedly, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that both petitioner and respondent are residing separately from 4 years. No doubt the respondent/wife is in a better position. But the children are residing with her and she is taking care of them in all aspects. She has not sought for any maintenance to her and the maintenance is sought only for the children for their educational expenses, extra curricular activities and for basic expenses. She filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.742 of 2023 for maintenance of Rs.80,000/-. But, the Family Court directed the petitioner herein to pay interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to each of the children. Apart from that, the petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the educational expenses and expenses of the extra curricular - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32806 WP No. 9859 of 2026 activities. Petitioner-husband is also an MBA graduate, he worked in MNC, but he is very reluctant to pay 50% of the expenses specified as educational and extracurricular activities and meagre amount of Rs.15,000/- to each of the child and this attitude as a father is not proper on his part. The Family Court has rightly considered all the aspects and granted reasonable amounts. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Family Court. 8. As a result, this petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34