- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6630 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. MRS. SMITHA STELLA D'SOUZA WIFE OF DEEPAK D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. STACIA SEAN D'SOUZA DAUGHTER OF DEEPAK D'SOUZA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, MRS. SMITHA STELLA D'SOUZA. RESIDING AT 2084/11, BEHIND ST. JOSEPH'S CONVENT SCHOOL, NAGAJYOTHI NAGAR, 29TH WARD, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KUSHAL GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHINAY Y.T, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 AND: 1. DEEPAK D'SOUZA SON OF DENNIS D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS AND RESIDING IN FRONT OF SLN SERVICE STATION, VAPASANDRA, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 101 ALSO RESIDING AT 131, 13 LAL BAGH MAIN ROAD, KS GARDEN, VINOBHA NAGAR, SUDHAMA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. JAGADISH J.R, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 26.10.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT CHIKKABALLAPUR IN C.MIS.NO. 56 OF 2023 (ANNX- F) AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW I.A.NO.2 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Kushal Gowda, who represents Mr. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Jagadish J. R., learned counsel for respondent. 2. Seeking Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapura on I.A.No.II in Crl.Misc. No. 56/2023 dated 26.10.2024, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. The petitioners herein invoked Section 125 Cr.P.C. and filed petition against respondent seeking maintenance. There is no denial of the fact that first petitioner is the wife of respondent and petitioner No. 2 is born out of the lawful wedlock. The petitioners also filed an interlocutory application seeking the Court to direct respondent to pay them a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite. The Family Court dismissed the said petition and aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that first petitioner is working as Teacher in a private school and she earns Rs.26,800/- per month. The second petitioner is a school going girl and the first petitioner is required to spend huge amount for the maintenance of second petitioner besides educational expenses. Respondent is earning Rs.60,000/- per month and he did not take care of any of the necessities of the petitioners. Therefore, petitioners sought to grant interim maintenance but the Family Court dismissed the petition only because the first petitioner is earning. Her earnings are not sufficient and therefore, respondent should be directed to pay maintenance pendente lite. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that respondent deliberately failed to file his statement of Assets and Liabilities. But the Court did not take any action against him. Submitting that failure on the part of husband to disclose his Assets and Liabilities should result in the defense being striked of, learned counsel relied - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Rajnesh vs. Neha and another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, at para 72.3 of the judgment held as follows. "72.3. (c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings [Kaushalya v. Mukesh Jain, (2020) 17 SCC 822 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1915] . On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record". 6. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondent on the other hand is that, respondent is on - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 temporary employment. He collects news from different sources and supply the same to news agencies. He has got no permanent source of earning. Therefore, the Family Court rightly dismissed the petition. 7. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Family Court only with an observation that the first petitioner is earning Rs.36,000/- per month and respondent has already paid school fees and other educational expenses of second petitioner, dismissed the application. 8. The first petitioner in her statement of Assets and Liabilities made a clear mention that she earns Rs.26,800/- only per month. On what basis, the Family Court observed that she earns Rs.36,000/- per month is not known. That apart, Family Court has not awarded any maintenance for the sustenance of second petitioner who is the minor child of the respondent. Payment of school fees and other educational expenses is not enough. The child requires proper food and nutrition to grow. Also - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 Family Court did not indicate anywhere in the impugned order that respondent/husband has filed his statement of Assets and Liabilities and if so, the details of the same and if not, why the Court has not acted upon. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of his submission stated that when the main case i.e., Crl.Misc.No.56/2023 was posted for judgment, this Court passed an order not to precipitate the matter and therefore, the Family Court could not dispose of the matter. 10. Having considered the submissions made and basing on the aforementioned discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6981 WP No. 6630 of 2025 ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapura on I.A.No.II in Crl.Misc.No.56/2023 dated 26.10.2024 is set-aside. iii) The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkaballapura is directed to dispose of Crl.Misc.No.56/ 2023 pending on its file within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iv) In case, if for any reason, the case is not disposed of within the time granted, the Court is directed to take up hearing on I.A.No.II, hear both sides and dispose of the said interlocutory application thereafter without delay. v) Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37