- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2951 WP No. 20722 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20722 OF 2022 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 12905 OF 2022 (GM-FC) IN WP No. 20722/2022 BETWEEN: SMT. LAVANYA W/O M.G. LOKESH C/O M PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KENKERE MAJURE BARADELEPALYA, HULIYARU HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M .G. LOKESH S/O K.S. GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS JUDICIAL OFFICER WORKING AS SENIOR CIVIL AND JMFC VIRAJAPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT - 577 221. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2951 WP No. 20722 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASEQUASH THAT PART OF THE ORDER DTD 10.06.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI IN M.C.NO.8/2021 IN GRANTING INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF ONLY RS.25,000/- PER MONTH IS CONCERNED, CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT IN M.C.NO.8/221 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., IN WP NO. 12905/2022 BETWEEN: SRI. M.G. LOKESH S/O SRI K S GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O DODDAMALIGERE VILLAGE, MAYASANDRA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 577 221 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. P LAVANYA W/O SRI. M.G. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O KENKERE MAJARE, BARADALEPALYA VILLAGE, HULIYUR HOBLI, C.N. HALLI (TALUK) TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214 ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 10.06.2022 PASSED BY THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2951 WP No. 20722 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022 COURT OF SENIOR JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKANAYANAKAHALLI IN MC NO.8/2021 VIDE ANNX-A AND ETC., THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Gangadharappa A.V., learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.20722/2022 who is representing the respondent in the connected Writ Petition. Also heard Sri. Nandish Gowda G.P., learned counsel for respondent in Writ Petition No.20722/2022 who is appearing for the petitioner in the connected Writ Petition i.e., Writ Petition No.12905/2022. 2. These two writ petitions are filed being aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli in an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C No.8/2021. 3. The status of the parties is not in dispute. Therefore for convenience of discussion, the parties to both the writ petitions will hereinafter be referred to as the husband and wife. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2951 WP No. 20722 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022 4. Husband filed a petition seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce. In the said petition i.e., in M.C 8/2021, wife filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. The Court through the impugned order directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, these two writ petitions came to be filed. While the husband contends that he is not liable to pay any amount towards such interim maintenance, the version of the wife is that the amount granted towards interim maintenance is grossly low. 5. Learned counsel who represents the husband submits that the marriage between the parties is an arranged marriage and the couple stayed happily only for about 4 months. Due to the attitude of the wife, they could not live longer and ultimately the wife left the matrimonial home. Learned counsel submits that as the wife is totally at fault and due to her attitude, husband is suffering, he is not liable to pay anything to the wife towards maintenance. 6. Per contra, learned counsel who represents the wife submits that due to the attitude of the husband, wife left the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2951 WP No. 20722 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022 matrimonial home and as she has no source of earning, she has to be maintained by her husband. 7. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel who represents the husband contends that wife is a science graduate and she is gainfully employed. Learned counsel also states that her father has got huge property and she inherited the property from her father. 8. Pleadings of both parties reveals allegations and counter allegations. When the wife contends that her husband has no love and affection towards her and he tortured her and assaulted her, husband on the other hand contends that his wife and his father asked for judicial favourism in pending cases which he denied and therefore his wife started torturing him. 9. Perceiving the fact that the husband is a judicial officer serving in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge and he earns more than a lakh per month, the trial Court directed him to pay interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. Admittedly, both parties failed to produce any evidence in respect of their financial constraints and liabilities. Basing on status of parties and as no material what so ever was produced to show that the wife has got her own source of earnings Court directed the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2951 WP No. 20722 of 2022 C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022 husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. A sum of Rs.25,000/- towards interim maintenance in the opinion of this Court is justifiable. The said sum can neither be reduced as sought for by learned counsel who represents the husband nor be enhanced as sought for by learned counsel who represents the wife. 10. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the decision taken by the trial Court through the impugned order. Hence, this Court ultimately holds that both the writ petitions lack merits. Resultantly, both the Writ Petitions stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34