Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31849 (KAR)

SUNIL KUMAR R v. SMT USHA T

WP/17790/2026 · 2026-07-27

P Sree Sudha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO.17790 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SUNIL KUMAR R. S/O. RANGAIAH H. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS NO.302, PRASHANTH NAGAR DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135 …PETITIONER (BY SRI M. JAGANNATH ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. USHA T. W/O. SUNIL KUMAR R. AND D/O. TULASIRAM AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.44/11, 1ST FLOOR 13TH CROSS, SRINAGAR BENGALURU-560 050 2. DHARMENDRA KUMAR T. P. S/O. PUTTAMADA SETTY MAJOR NO.1024-A, 14TH MAIN BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE 2ND BLOCK HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 050 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.4.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN MC NO.4421/2021 ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE 'A'. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 22.07.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed to set aside the order dated 21.04.2026 in M.C.No.4421/2021 c/w M.C.No.4689/2024 in I.A.No.IV. It seems both petitioner and respondent filed two applications. One for divorce and one for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C.No.4421/2021 and M.C.No.4689/2024 and the wife had filed I.A.No.VI in M.C.No.4421/2021 for interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the child namely Manaswini from the date of birth and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Family Court after considering the entire evidence on record, granted interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 month to the child from the date of filing application till the disposal of the petition towards her educational expenses and other expenses and also granted Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses and directed the husband to deposit the arrears within 90 days. Aggrieved by the said order, husband preferred this writ petition. 2. He stated that his marriage with respondent No.1 was performed on 06.08.2020. Respondent No.2 is the paramour of respondent No.1. His wife is working as Assistant Professor in Federal College of Management. She is a Post Graduate with Doctorate in Philosophy and Commerce and presently working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Commerce at Maharani Lakshmi Ammanni College for Women (Autonomous), Bengaluru. He further stated that even after marriage, she continued her illicit relationship with respondent No.2 and confessed before him that her marriage with respondent No.2 was performed on 31.07.2020 and she conceived through him. Their child Manaswini was born on 21.05.2021 and she is - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 aged five years, there was absolutely no relationship between them. Initially, he filed M.C. No.1272/2021 under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 requesting the Court to dispense with a statutory cooling period of one year. As it was not disposed of even after one year, he has withdrawn the same and filed M.C.No.4421/2021 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. Respondent No.2 remained absent. 3. I.A.No.II is filed by his wife claiming interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- for herself and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. When he filed objections dated 29.11.2022, she has withdrawn the same on 28.06.2024 and filed a fresh application claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month for herself and child and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. She also filed M.C.No.4689/2024 for restitution of conjugal rights. He stated that I.A.No.2 is dismissed as withdrawn, as such, I.A.No.IV filed for the same relief is hit by the principles of res judicata. Child is in tender age of 5 years. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- per - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 month which is granted towards educational expenses by the Family Court, is excessive. Respondent No.1 is Post Graduate and Doctorate. Moreover, petitioner-husband denied the paternity of the child but in DNA test, it was held that he is the biological father but it is subject to scrutiny through the process of law. Therefore, it cannot be relied upon and thus, requested the Court to set aside the order. 4. In the objections filed by wife, she stated that from the beginning, petitioner was suspecting her fidelity and chastity and disputed the paternity of the child but DNA report dated 31.05.2021 clearly emphasises as follows: "Sunil Kumar and Usha T are the Biological father and Biological mother of baby Manaswini." 5. Petitioner has not seen face of the child from the date of her birth. She paid Rs.34,000/- for nursery, Rs.40,000/- for LKG and Rs.45,000/- for UKG and she is - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 also incurring other expenses including medical expenses. She further stated that their marriage was performed on 6.8.2020 and it was consummated on 8.8.2020. as a result, Manaswini was born on 21.05.2021. When she was 8 month pregnant, he left her in the house of her parents and blocked the mobile. Though she has sent the photographs of the daughter, he has not responded. Even when she brought the child to the court hearings, he has never shown any affection. As I.A.No.2 is withdrawn, it cannot be said that I.A.No.IV is hit by res judicata. DNA test is conducted by State Forensic Science Laboratory and the same cannot be disputed. 6. Heard arguments of both sides. 7. Though that petitioner had mainly contended that his wife is highly qualified, working and earning, considering the said fact, Family Court has not granted any amount towards her maintenance. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 8. It is further contended by him that initially she filed IA No.2 for claiming maintenance but she has withdrawn the same and again filed I.A.No.4, as such, it is hit by the principle of res judicata. As the first IA is dismissed as withdrawn, it cannot be said that IA.No.IV filed for same relief is hit by res judicata and the said contention cannot be accepted. 9. Petitioner mainly contended that Manaswini is not his daughter, as such, did not paid interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month granted by the Court. Admittedly, he sought for DNA test and in the DNA report, it was clearly stated that petitioner and respondent No.1 are biological parents of the child. Moreover, their marriage was performed on 06.08.2020 and the child was born on 21.05.2021 during the subsistence of the valid marriage. Though petitioner stated that their marriage was not consummated, respondent stated that it was consummated on 08.08.2020 itself. He failed to prove non-access to his wife. As the child was born during the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010389832026 NC: 2026:KHC:38920 WP No. 17790 of 2026 subsistence of the valid marriage, the presumption can be raised under Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding the paternity of the child, moreover, it was also supported by result of a DNA test. Respondent No.1 is getting a gross salary of Rs.84,791/- and after the deductions, she is getting a salary of Rs.68,365/-. So, considering all the facts, Family Court rightly granted an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance of the child and also Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses from the date of petition. 10. There is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Family Court. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed by confirming the order of the Family Court in M.C.No.4421/2021 dated 21.04.2026. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE DS/CT:VC/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73