- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9959 WP No. 21561 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 21561 OF 2022 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. CHI. DAKSHITH S., S/O S. SHASHIKIRAN, AGED ABOUT 2 1/2 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. M.S. KAVYASHREE 2. SMT. M.S. KAVYASHREE W/O S. SHASHIKIRAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 278, USHA NILAYA, 1ST CROSS SINDHU MARGA, KAVERINAGAR 1ST STAGE, MANDYA - 571401 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANKARANARAYANA BHAT N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. SHASHIKIRAN S/O LATE S.K. SHIVANANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9959 WP No. 21561 of 2022 WORKING AS SDA IN D.C OFFICE, MANDYA - 571 401. 2. SMT. H.M. SUJATHA W/O LATE S.K. SHIVANANJEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO. 74, SARANYA NILAYA KAVERI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, MANDYA - 571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHREYAS B.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PUTTE GOWDA K., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH AND MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANDYA ON I.A.NO.1 IN O.S.NO.158/2021 DTD 25.08.2022 MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. 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:9959 WP No. 21561 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Shankaranarayana Bhat.N learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri.Shreyas.B.S who represents Sri.Puttegowda.K learned counsel on record for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and thereby to quash or modify the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mandya on I.A.No.I in OS.No.158/2021 dated 25.08.2022, this writ petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioner No.1 is minor son and petitioner No.2 is the wife of respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the mother of respondent No.1. Petitioners filed a suit against respondents seeking maintenance and also for partition of suit schedule properties. They also moved an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.I for grant of maintenance pendente lite. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mandya - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9959 WP No. 21561 of 2022 through the impugned order directed respondent No.1 herein to pay petitioner No.1 a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month pendente lite and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. No maintenance whatsoever was granted to petitioner No.2. Learned counsel states that respondent No.1 is working as Second Division Assistant at DC Office, Mandya and he is earning huge amount. That apart, respondent No.1 is getting income from the suit schedule property. Item Nos.1 to 8 of the suit schedule properties stand in the name of grandfather of respondent No.1, item Nos.9 to 11 of the suit schedule properties stand in the name of respondent No.1 himself and Item Nos.12 to 23 stand in the name of the mother of respondent No.1 who is Respondent No.2 herein. Without considering the income which respondent No.1 derives through the said property, the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mandya granted meagre sum towards maintenance of petitioner No.1. No amount is granted as interim maintenance to petitioner No.2. Hence, this writ petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9959 WP No. 21561 of 2022 4. The submission that is made by learned counsel for respondents on the other hand is that petitioners filed a suit for partition and in a suit for partition an application for grant of interim maintenance is not maintainable at all. Learned counsel also states that no material whatsoever is produced by petitioners to show that respondent No.1 is earning anything through the suit schedule property. That apart, petitioner No.2 is also an employee. Therefore, the trial Court rightly took a decision and passed appropriate orders and thus, the petition is not maintainable. 5. In the impugned order there is a clear mention that as per the declaration given by petitioner No.2, she is working as assistant teacher on temporary basis and is earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The trial Court also made a clear mention in the impugned order that as per the salary slip produced by respondent No.1 herein, his gross salary is Rs.33,472/- and his take home salary is Rs.23,902/-. No material whatsoever was produced by the petitioners herein to show that respondent No.1 earns - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9959 WP No. 21561 of 2022 anything out of the suit schedule property. Therefore, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the finding given by the trial Court that petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards interim maintenance and the litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits. Resultantly, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33