- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 6620 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. ROHIT KHAJURIA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O MAJ. GEN. SURESH KHAJURIA (RETD), WORKING AT GENPACT INDIA PVT LTD., NO.99, SURYA PARK, ELECTRONIC CITY PHASE 1, BENGALURU-560 100 PERMANENT RESIDING AT A-2, VICTORIA ESTATE, DEFENSE ROAD, NEAR PRATAP WORLD SCHOOL, P.O SIONTY, PATHANKOT-145 001. PUNJAB. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.K. NANDAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE; SRI. SHREYAS B.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 AND: MRS SUSHMA (MUTHAMMA) MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O ROHIT KAJURIA, D/O BRIG. N.N. MADAPPA (RETD), RESIDING AT B-7, "PIONEER REGENCY, NO.698/A, KODIHALLI, HAL 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.B. APPAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER I.A.NO.3 IN M.C.NO.1756/2016 AND ORDER DATED 09.12.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.C.K.Nandakumar learned Senior Counsel who represents the petitioner. Also heard Sri.P.B.Appaiah learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari and to quash the order that is rendered by Court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in MC No.1756/2016 dated 09.12.2022 this writ petition is filed. 3. The status and relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus, petitioner herein is the husband of respondent. Respondent/wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act to declare the marriage as nullity. She moved an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.III seeking the Court to direct petitioner/husband to pay her a sum of Rs.75,000/- per month as interim maintenance and Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 The Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month as interim maintenance pendente lite and also Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. 4. Projecting that he is not entitled to pay any sum towards interim maintenance, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Learned senior counsel who represents petitioner contends that though the liability to pay maintenance is also disputed, for the present he confines on the quantum of amount that is awarded as maintenance. Learned counsel submits that respondent has got her own source of income apart from holding immovable property. As per her own statement of assets and liabilities, she is self-employed in handmade products for home decor and she earns Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel contends that she claimed herself to be a sole proprietor of her business establishment. Learned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 counsel further submits that petitioner on the other hand though employed is under liability to clear the loans he obtained. Further he is under obligation to maintain his mother. Learned counsel states that this Court passed an interim order directing petitioner herein to pay 50% of the amount ordered by the Family Court to pay through the impugned order and therefore, the said interim order passed by this Court dated 19.04.2023 may be confirmed. Also stating that where wife has got capacity and capability to earn and where she is capable of earning, she is not entitled for any maintenance, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court reported in ILR 2005 KAR 4981 between Dr.E.Shanthi and Dr.H.K.Vasudev wherein this Court at para 3 of the order held as under: "3. Admittedly, petitioner is residing with her parents at Chennai and whose brother is also a doctor. When the petitioner was practicing prior to marriage, when her name continuous on the board of the clinic, the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 application of the petitioner. There is no difficulty for the petitioner to work as a Doctor. Even if the petitioner is not working as a doctor in the clinic of her brother, since there are no impediments for her to work along with her brother as a doctor and when she is capable of earning, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner. When the petitioner is capable of earning and having required qualification and that when she was working as a doctor prior to marriage, there cannot be any difficulty for her to continue the same profession. Therefore, Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act cannot come to the aid of such persons. Accordingly, this petition has to be rejected." 6. Contradicting the submission that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent states that respondent earns Rs.2,28,000/- per month. He obtained loan only to purchase car and a house. Through his earnings he acquired huge property. Learned counsel submits that respondent/wife should be maintained by petitioner in the same standard he lives. Learned counsel also submits that as on the date of filing - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 of application for grant of interim maintenance, respondent had no source of earnings. She is staying with her father. Learned counsel thereby submits that the writ petition lacks merits. 7. There is no denial of the fact that the net income of petitioner is Rs.2,28,000/-. As per the version of respondent herself she earns Rs.10,000/- per month being the sole proprietor of her business. Her version is also that she is self-employed in handmade products for home decor. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the petitioner, when the version of respondent/wife is that she is residing with her parents, she cannot claim that she is paying a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month as rent for the house/flat. If the version of respondent that she has no occupation is taken to be true, this Court does not understand as to why she has mentioned that she needs a sum of Rs.15,000/- for transportation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 8. No doubt every wife whether she lives with her husband or otherwise intends to maintain the same standard of living as that of her husband. However, here is a case where respondent has got her own source of earning. However, the income of petitioner undoubtedly is much higher than that of respondent. But perceiving the fact that respondent claimed Rs.25,000/- towards rent, though she is not paying any amount as such, as on the date of filing of the application for grant of interim maintenance, as her own version is that she is living along with her parents and as there is no justification to claim a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation charges, this Court is of the view that the interim maintenance granted pendente lite by the Family Court of Rs.35,000/- per month is required to be reduced to Rs.25,000/-. So far as litigation expenses is concerned, this Court does not find any grounds for interference. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5408 WP No. 6620 of 2023 ORDER (i) The order that is rendered by the Court of IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in MC No.1756/2016 dated 09.12.2022 is modified. (ii) The sum awarded towards interim maintenance pendente lite is reduced from Rs.35,000/- per month to Rs.25,000/-. (iii) All arrears to be cleared within a period of two months. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7