Karnataka High Court
WP/19347/2026 of DIVYA H K Vs BHARATH KUMAR on 23 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010426112026 NC: 2026:KHC:52709 WP No. 19347 of 2026 C/W WP No. 11422 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 19347 OF 2026 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 11422
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 19347 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 11422 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
IN WP No. 19347/2026
BETWEEN:
DIVYA H.K.
W/O BHARAT KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT 384, KLE LAW COLLEGE ROAD
5TH BLOCK, SIR M V LAYOUT
BENGALURU -560 091
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BALACHANDRA P BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BHARATH KUMAR
S/O LATE RAMACHANDREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT 705, BAIRAPATTANA VILLAGE
MALURU HOBLI, CHENNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGAR -562 160
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN M.C. NO.6856/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND MODIFY
THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN M.C.NO.
6856/23 ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 24 OF
THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT BY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
TO PAY RS.50,000/- PER MONTH AS INTERIM MAINTENANCE
TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE
APPLICATION TILL THE DATE OF DISPOSAL OF THE SUIT AS
PER ANNEXURE-A.
IN WP NO. 11422/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. BHARATH KUMAR
S/O RAMACHANDRA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 705.
BAIRAPATTANA VILLAGE
MALURU HOBLI
CHANNAPATNA TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR NADIG, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. DIVYA.H.K
W/O BHARATH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.007
SANTRUPTI FLAT
DS MAX PROPERTIES
GIDADA KONENAHALLI
NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU- 560 091
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. BALACHANDRA P BHAT, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
HC-KAR
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 09.02.2026, PASSED IN M.C NO.
6856/2023 BY THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU, FILED ON THE APPLICATION UNDER
SECTION 24 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955, BY THE
RESPONDENT ON IA NO.3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
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
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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 09.02.2026 passed on I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.6856/2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, both the wife and husband are before the Court. The parties are referred to as wife and husband for the sake of convenience.
2. The Family Court, by order impugned had granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance to the wife. The wife had sought maintenance of an amount of Rs.50,000/-. According to her, she is uneducated and unable to maintain herself, and therefore sought for maintenance. According to the husband, he is a milk vendor. He has no other properties in his name. In his statement of assets and liabilities, he has stated
HC-KAR
that he has property to the extent of 1 acre 12 guntas, which is part of litigation before the High Court. Except that, he has not stated any other property.
3. The Family Court by order impugned had granted the maintenance and observed that based on the prima facie perusal of the respondent’s assets agricultural land of 1 acre in Sy.No.657/4 and 1 acre 12 guntas in Sy.No.669 in Mallur village, Channapatna, the husband is an able-bodied person and is liable to maintain his wife. Accordingly, Family Court granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the husband has suppressed the material facts before the Court and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha1, an adverse inference has to be drawn by the Court and also appropriate proceedings have to be initiated by the Court. Before this Court, he has filed some additional documents stating that there are 4 houses which are in the name of the father, which is devolved upon 4 children. With regard to the other properties, there was no mention. With 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324
HC-KAR
several cases pending she has to travel and she has to take care of herself with the amount of Rs.10,000/- that is granted by the Court is not sufficient for her to maintain herself.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that the husband is a milk vendor. He has no properties as stated, and whatever the property is, there is civil litigation pending before this Court. He is not in a position to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- as maintenance, and the order has to be modified by reducing the maintenance amount.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, referred supra, has laid down guidelines, one of which is the filing of assets and liabilities by both parties. Before the judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, referred supra, the court had to do the guesswork or as submitted by the parties. After the judgment, the assets and liabilities clearly contain what are all the particulars that have to be furnished by each party, and in case the said details are not furnished, what are the consequences to be followed, the judgment is also very clear. From the facts of this case, on the face of it, there is
HC-KAR
suppression on the part of the husband. On a prima facie basis, the court has also observed that apart from 1 acre, there is also 1 acre 12 guntas in Channapatna. That itself clearly shows suppression. Apart from that, certain documents are placed before the court which this court cannot look into this writ petition. Hence, this court deems it appropriate to direct the trial Court to consider the case of both parties. Accordingly, this court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed by setting aside the order dated 09.02.2026 passed on I.A.No.3 in M.C.No.6856/2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court.
ii. The wife and husband are at liberty to file the relevant documents. Based on that, the Family Court shall consider whether there is any suppression or misrepresentation of facts
HC-KAR
before the Court. If the Court comes to the conclusion that there is any suppression, the Court shall initiate appropriate proceedings as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and the Family Court shall determine the maintenance.
iii. The husband shall continue to pay the amount as per the interim order.
iv. The Family Court shall follow the procedure as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha.
v. All pending I.As., in the petitions shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55