- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:917 WP No. 22437 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 22437 OF 2023 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. DHANARAJ K., S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A SHWETHA NILAYA, NO.333, 9TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, ASHOKA NAGARA, TUMAKURU - 572 103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOUNESH S.B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K DHANALAKSHMI W/O DHANARAJ K AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 2. REKHA D D/O DHANARAJ K., AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 3. SRI. SANJAY D., S/O DHANARAJ K., Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:917 WP No. 22437 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3 ARE ALL R/AT DEVANUR MAIN ROAD, SHETTIHALLI GATE, SS PURAM, TUMAKURU - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; R3- SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 29.07.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.08.2023, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT TUMAKURU, PASSED ON I.A.NO.2, FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS U/S 125(2) OF CRPC IN C.MISC.NO.21/2023, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, THEREBY REJECT THE IA NO.2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS U.S 125(2) OF CRPC IN C.MISC.NO.21/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:917 WP No. 22437 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Mounesh who represents Sri.V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner as well as Sri.Ravi Shankar.K, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. This writ petition is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru on IA No.II in C.Mis.No.21/2023 dated 24.08.2023. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus it is clear that the petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondents filed a petition seeking maintenance from the writ petitioner and they also filed IA No.II seeking the Court to grant interim maintenance pending disposal of the main case. The Court through the impugned order granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 dismissing the petition against respondent No.3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:917 WP No. 22437 of 2023 3. Arguing on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a small employee in a hotel and he is earning around Rs.10,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of respondent Nos.1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner sold a house and out of the sale proceeds he deposited a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- into the account of the first respondent. Without being satisfied with the amount sent, respondents are harassing the petitioner for further financial assistance which he cannot provide. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the writ petition and thereby dismiss IA No. II. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.2 is pursuing her MBBS degree course at Russia and to meet the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:917 WP No. 22437 of 2023 educational expenses the petitioner has sent the said amount, but not for the maintenance. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner by working as supervisor is earning huge sum and therefore, he has got financial capability to pay the amount as ordered. 6. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is working as supervisor in a hotel by name Sri Vigneshwara Comforts, Tumakuru. As per the version of the petitioner he is earning Rs.10,470/- per month. No substantive proof is produced by the petitioner to show that the first respondent has got independent sources of earnings. The Tribunal discussing each and every fact of the case in detail has rendered an order holding that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards interim maintenance. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with such well reasoned order. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the writ petition lacks merits. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:917 WP No. 22437 of 2023 Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31