Karnataka High Court
WP/16137/2025 of DEEPA NAIDU Vs ASHWIN KUMAR on 28 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010299552025 NC: 2026:KHC:53723 WP No. 16137 of 2025 C/W WP No. 15697 of 2025 WP No. 28418 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16137 OF 2025 (GM-FC) C/W
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 16137 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 15697 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
WRIT PETITION NO. 28418 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
IN WP No. 16137/2025
BETWEEN:
DEEPA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O LATE MR. R. SURESH NAIDU
R/AT NO.60 DEEP MAHAL,
25 FEET ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
NEW SARASWATHIPURAM, HALASURU,
BENGALURU -560 008
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KAVERI THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ASHWIN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE MR. PREM KUMAR
R/AT NO.8A, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
NEHRU NAGAR, ADYAR
CHENNAI-600 020
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJARAJESHWARI T.S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO THE INTERIM
MAINTENANCE FROM RS. 10,000/- AS ORDERED IN THE
ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 ON IA NO. 3. IN MC NO. 688/2021
ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT BENGALURU, TO RS. 20,000/-.
IN WP NO. 15697/2025
BETWEEN:
DEEPA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O LATE MR. R. SURESH NAIDU
R/AT NO.60, DEEP MAHAL,
25 FEET ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
NEW SARASWATHIPURAM HALASURU,
BENGALURU -560 008
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KAVERI THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ASHWIN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE MR. PREM KUMAR
R/AT NO.8A, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
NEHRU NAGAR, ADYAR
CHENNAI-600 020
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAJARAJESHWARI T.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 13.02.2025 ON IA NO. 2 IN
MC NO. 688/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VI ADDL PRL.
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU PRODUCED HEREIN AS
ANNEXURE-A AND GRANT THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF
RS.10000/- TO THE PETITIONER.
HC-KAR
IN WP NO. 28418/2025
BETWEEN:
DEEPA NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O LATE MR. R. SURESH NAIDU
R/AT NO.60 DEEP MAHAL,
25 FEET ROAD, 3RD CROSS,
NEW SARASWATHIPURAM HALASURU,
BENGALURU- 560 008
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KAVERI THIMMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ASHWIN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O LATE MR. PREM KUMAR
R/AT NO.8A, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
NEHRU NAGAR, ADYAR
CHENNAI-600 020
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RAJARAJESHWARI T.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT HIM TO
PAY THE FULL EXTENT OF SCHOOL AND OTHER AFFILIATE
FEES OF THE CHILD AS SOUGHT FOR IN IA NO. 9 IN MC NO.
688/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU AND MODIFYING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 13.02.2025 PRODUCED HEREIN AS ANNEXURE- A TO THE EXTENT.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE
THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 9 in M.C No.688/2022 by the VI Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the petitioner/wife is before this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as wife and husband.
3. The wife had filed MC seeking divorce. In that, she has filed these IAs. She has sought pendente lite maintenance of Rs.10,000/- for herself and Rs.20,000/- for the minor son. She had filed I.A.No.9 under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, directing the husband to pay Rs.1,21,290/- towards school and other affiliated fees of their child for the academic year 2022- 23 and a sum of Rs.15,380/- for the month of June, 2023.
4. The Family Court, by order impugned, had dismissed the application filed by the wife seeking maintenance. When it comes to the child, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted that, the Family Court, in the operative portion of the order, refers to I.A.Nos.3
HC-KAR
and 9, stating that it is partly allowed, but it is not mentioned about the school fees. However, the Family Court had clarified with regard to the maintenance of the child. The Family Court passed an order in four paragraphs. Paragraph Nos.1, 2 and 3 relate to the facts, and Paragraph No.4 discusses the statements of assets and liabilities, noting that the husband undertook to pay maintenance of Rs.10,000/-. The Family Court considered the fact that the wife had lived for 3 months and that the statement of account furnished by the wife shows a substantial amount being deposited in her account. Accordingly, the Family Court had rejected her case and partly allowed the IA as far as the minor son is concerned and though it is said that partly allowed, the Court has not specifically stated about the amount.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/wife submits that just because the wife has stayed for 3 months with the husband, that itself cannot be a ground for the court to disentitle the wife. It is a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is bereft of reasons and the same needs to be set aside and the wife is entitled for maintenance
HC-KAR
and there shall be an order directing the husband to pay the educational expenses of the child. However, she does not dispute the fact that the husband is continuing to pay Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted that unless and until the maintenance is granted to the wife and the school fees are paid, wife would not be in a position to take care of the child and herself.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that he is earning a meager amount of Rs.6,000/-. He is working as a Junior Advocate, and with great effort is paying an amount Rs.10,000/- and he is not in a position to pay any other amount. These aspects are considered by the court. The Family Court has rejected the case, and there are no grounds to interfere.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. Both the parties have filed their statements of assets and liabilities and have taken their respective contentions. A perusal of the order passed by the Family Court reveals that the Family Court has absolutely failed to consider any of the aspects, including why the Court has
HC-KAR
granted Rs.10,000/-, why the Court has not granted Rs.20,000/-, why the Court has rejected the wife's case, and why the Court has not granted any relief with respect to educational expenses. In light of the fact that no reasons are forthcoming in the order, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 9 in MC No. 688/2022 by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration. The Family Court shall pass a reasoned order.
ii. Till further orders are passed by the Family Court, the husband shall continue to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-.
iii. The Family Court shall consider I.A.Nos.2, 3 and 9 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
HC-KAR
iv. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46 *AK