- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3472 WP No. 20751 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.20751 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. S. PALLAVI W/O. ABHINANDAN C. T. AGED 40 YEARS 2. KUM. SONIKA ABINANDAN GOWDA D/O. ABHINANDAN C. T. AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SMT. S. PALLAVI BOTH ARE R/A NO.374/117/39 SNEHA SANNIDHI KOMALADEVI ENCLAVE, NITTE COLLEGE MAIN ROAD, NEXT TO APTS VADERAPURA, A.F. STATION YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 063 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANOJ MADHAV, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI MANJUNATH B. R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3472 WP No. 20751 of 2025 AND: SRI ABHINANDAN C. T. S/O. THAMMANNA AGED 45 YEARS R/AT NO.1030, 13TH CROSS SIDDANNA LAYOUT, BSK II STAGE BENGLAURU-560 070 NOW R/AT NO.301 4TH FLOOR, NO.3 AND 4 SHRI HEIGHTS, 4TH CROSS PAPPAREDDYPALYA NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 072 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI LOKESH S. G., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/04/2024 ON APPLICATION FILED U/S 125(2) OF CRPC IN CRL.MISC NO.440/2020 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALLOW THE SAME. 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:3472 WP No. 20751 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Manoj Madhav who represents Sri.Manjunath.B.R learned counsel on record for the petitioners as well as Sri.Lokesh.S.G learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.II in C.Mis.No.440/2020, dated 04.04.2024 the present writ petition is filed. 3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus, the first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the minor daughter of the respondent herein. As per the material available on record, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the respondent seeking maintenance. They also moved I.A.No.II seeking interim maintenance pending disposal of the main case. The Court disallowed the relief - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3472 WP No. 20751 of 2025 sought for and aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners states that respondent as a software professional earns more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Thus, he has got sufficient capacity to maintain the petitioners. Without taking into consideration the financial capability of the respondent, the Tribunal rejected the relief sought for and therefore, setting aside the orders that were passed by the trial Court, maintenance may be granted to the petitioners. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent states that the first petitioner is also a working woman. She also earns around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. The amount she earns is sufficient to maintain herself and also the child. That apart, respondent is paying school fee and incurring transportation expenses for the child to go to school. Also respondent has taken LIC policy for the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3472 WP No. 20751 of 2025 welfare of the child for which he is spending a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. Learned counsel states that as the first petitioner is well off, the Court rightly dismissed the application filed by her seeking interim maintenance and thus, the writ petition is not maintainable. 6. By the submission that is made by both the learned counsel, it is clear that the parents of the second petitioner i.e., the first petitioner and the respondent have got their own source of earnings. The version of the respondent is that he is taking care of the educational expenses of the child besides paying premium to the bond obtained from LIC and thus, he is not required to pay any amount towards interim maintenance. 7. Undisputedly, the first petitioner besides doing job to eek out her livelihood is taking care of the child. For argument sake if it is considered that the child is in the custody of the respondent, he would have to spend considerable amount for employing any person to look - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3472 WP No. 20751 of 2025 after the welfare of the child, for her food, shelter, medical and other expenses. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the respondent, when both the parents are working and are earning, it would be the responsibility of both of them to look after the welfare of the child. However, as the allegation of the first petitioner is that the respondent is not spending any amount for the welfare of the child and that she is unable to bear the entire expenses and as it is observed that it is for respondent also to shoulder the responsibility, this Court considers desirable to pass appropriate orders. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The order that is rendered by the Court of V Additional Principal Judge, Bangalore on I.A.No.II in C.Mis.No.440/2020 dated 04.04.2024 is set aside so far as the second petitioner is concerned. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3472 WP No. 20751 of 2025 (ii) Respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance for the second petitioner. The said amount shall be paid from the date of filing of I.A.No.II. (iii) In case respondent had paid anything towards the educational expenses of the second petitioner from the date of filing of I.A.No.II till now, on producing sufficient proof to that effect, the said amount be deducted by the trial Court from the amount which the respondent is liable to pay as per this order. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62