- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.38852 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. D. VISWANATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. SRI N. DEVAN AND N. JAYALAKSHMI PERMANENT ADDRESS AT HOUSE NO.6/46/C AROKIAPURAM WELLINGTON BARRACKS THE NILGRIS TAMIL NADU-643 231 …PETITIONER (BY SRI BRIAN CRISPIN REGO, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MAMTA @ MAMTA VISHWANATH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O. MR. D. VISWANATH D/O. MR. NEMI CHAND CHOUHAN AND PANI PRAMILA PRESENTLY R/O. FLAT NO.H-602 Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025 PRITHVI WORLD APARTMENTS BANNUR ROAD SIDDHARTH LAYOUT NEAR NAZARBAD POLICE STATION MYSURU-570 010 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SANIDHYA M. J., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU, IN M.C. NO.681/2024, PARTLY ALLOWING I.A. NO.III FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A, AND THEREBY DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Brian Crispin Rego learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Sanidhya.M.J learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to quash the order that is rendered by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.681/2024 dated 13.11.2025, this writ petition is filed. 3. Respondent herein who is the wife of petitioner filed a petition seeking decree of divorce. She also moved an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.III seeking the Court to direct her husband i.e., petitioner herein to pay her a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. The Court through the impugned order directed petitioner herein to pay respondent a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards interim maintenance. Aggrieved by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025 the order thus passed, husband is before this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. Both the learned counsel during the course of their respective submission, defending their clients, argued at length that they have no source of income whatsoever. However, at later point of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner receives a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- and odd towards pension. So far as the earnings of respondent are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court certain crucial aspects. Respondent in her statement of assets and liabilities made a clear mention that she is not an income tax assessee. However, by the documents produced by the petitioner, it is clear that respondent is an income tax assessee. Learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this Court that respondent holds a sum of Rs.26,50,000/- deposited in the bank by way of fixed deposits. Learned counsel for the respondent failed to deny the fact that respondent has not shown the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025 said asset in the statement filed by her regarding her assets and liabilities before the Court. Learned counsel submits that by oversight they were not shown. 5. The very purpose of filing of an affidavit of assets and liabilities by both parties to the proceedings in family matters is to bring to the knowledge of each other, the assets and liabilities they hold and also to the Court, so that the Court can come to a just conclusion about their financial status and decide this lis. However, in the case on hand, petitioner failed to disclose the fact that she is an income tax assessee and also the fixed deposits she hold. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that even the petitioner is guilty of suppression of his assets and that he holds a sum of Rupees one crore and odd in the accounts maintained by him and that his transactions reveals that in a single month he transacted more than Rupees five crores. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025 6. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Court could not come to a conclusion either with regard to the entitlement of respondent for maintenance or interim maintenance, her earnings if any, financial assets she holds and equally the assets of petitioner herein. As it is disclosed before this Court that respondent has suppressed the material particulars in the affidavit given by her disclosing her assets and liabilities. Therefore, without going into merits of the matter this Court is of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. However, it is made clear that setting aside impugned order does not mean that respondent is not entitled for maintenance. Only because respondent who sought maintenance failed to place before the Court material particulars, this Court is of the view that the relief sought for by her cannot be granted. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5772 WP No. 38852 of 2025 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.681/2024 dated 13.11.2025 is set aside. (iii) In the light of the submission that by oversight all the particulars are not furnished, liberty is granted to respondent to file her affidavit of assets and liabilities afresh. (iv) On filing such affidavit and on granting an opportunity to petitioner herein to produce his documents, if any, the Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No.III afresh. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23