- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648662026 NC: 2026:KHC:55673 WP No. 29709 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 29709 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI.K.N.KARTHIK UDUPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE. K. NAGARAJA UDUPA, NO.5D 106, PROVIDENT SUNWORTH, PHASE II, BEHIND R.R. MEDICAL COLLEGE, VENKATAPURA VILLAGE, DODDABELE, KENGERI HOBLI, BENGALURU- 560 060. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.ANCHAL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, D/O KRISHNAMURTHY, W/O K.N. KARTHIK UDUPA, NO.566, I BLOCK, III STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER INSOFAR AS IT DIRECTS THE PETITIONER TO PAY RS.25,000/- AS MONTHLY Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648662026 NC: 2026:KHC:55673 WP No. 29709 of 2026 INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 14.08.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN M.C.NO.3392/2023 BY THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 14.08.2026 passed in I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.3392/2023 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The husband had filed M.C.No.3392/2023 seeking dissolution of marriage. In that, the wife had filed I.A.No.3 seeking maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Family Court, by the impugned order, had granted maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. 4. While granting maintenance, the Family Court recorded that the husband's income is Rs.1,31,000/- and that - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648662026 NC: 2026:KHC:55673 WP No. 29709 of 2026 the wife's Income Tax returns show income of Rs.1,29,370/- for the year 2022, Rs.1,14,000/- for the year 2023-2024, and Rs.2,31,000/- for the year 2024-2025. Considering the fact that the husband has an income of Rs.1,31,000/- per month and the wife is receiving only around Rs.15,000/- as per the Income Tax returns, the Family Court granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that the wife is not entitled to maintenance. She is a practicing advocate and has income. In fact, her statement of assets and liabilities reflects that she has fixed deposits of Rs.36 lakhs and odd, and her Income Tax returns also show that she is working. When she is an educated, hale and healthy person and she is able to work, the Family Court ought not to have granted maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. It is submitted that the wife is staying with her mother and has a share in the property, and that aspect was not disclosed by the wife in her statement of assets and liabilities. It is submitted that the impugned order needs to be set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648662026 NC: 2026:KHC:55673 WP No. 29709 of 2026 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that both parties are in a second marriage, and the petitioner has divorced his first wife and paid alimony of Rs.12 lakhs. Further, it is submitted that, as they could not have children, the wife had to undergo a procedure in which, in the first attempt, the fetus was unhealthy and she had to abort the child. Later, though she was working at Sriram General Insurance Company, the husband made her to resign, and within 2 months she again had to undergo a procedure. Later, she gave birth to the baby, and within a few hours the baby died. It is submitted that, with all the procedures she had to undergo at the husband's instance, she had to stop working, which had a significant impact on her health. It is submitted that the wife does not dispute the fact that there are fixed deposits. It is submitted that, when her earlier husband died in an accident, she received the compensation amount. It is submitted that this cannot be a reason for the husband not to provide any maintenance to the wife. It is submitted that she has recently undergone surgery and is not in a position to work. Learned counsel has placed photographs to show that - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648662026 NC: 2026:KHC:55673 WP No. 29709 of 2026 she has undergone the surgery. It is submitted that the wife had sought maintenance of Rs.80,000/- per month, and the Family Court had granted only Rs.25,000/-. Even that is questioned before this Court. It is submitted that the order impugned does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record. There is no dispute about the fact that the husband's income is Rs.1,31,000/- and the wife has studied law and previously worked at Sriram General Insurance Company. According to the wife, she stopped working at the husband's instance and, due to further health reasons, was not in a position to work. According to the husband, she is still practicing as an advocate. No material has been placed before the Court on that aspect. Hence, this Court cannot come to any such conclusion. However, the photographs placed before this Court indicate that she is not in good health. Regarding income, the husband earns Rs.1,31,000/- per month, and the Income Tax returns show that the wife earns Rs.15,000/- and odd per month. That would not be sufficient - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010648662026 NC: 2026:KHC:55673 WP No. 29709 of 2026 for the wife to sustain herself. Regarding the fixed deposits, that is compensation received by her. Based on that, the petitioner, who is the second husband, cannot say that he will not pay maintenance to the wife. The husband has the financial capacity and the Court has granted only Rs.25,000/-. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4