Karnataka High Court
WP/24019/2026 of SRI. VIJAY PENAGONDA Vs SMT. SUGANYA BALU on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010526872026 NC: 2026:KHC:49108 WP No. 24019 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24019 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. VIJAY PENAGONDA S/O LATE SRINIVASA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 24019 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. VIJAY PENAGONDA
S/O LATE SRINIVASA RANGACHAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 326,
12TH B MAIN ROAD
NEAR KMWA COLLEGE, NAGAPURA,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT,
BENGALURU -560 086
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ABHILASH MISHRA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SUGANYA BALU
W/O VIJAY PENAGONDA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.199/A,
ANJANADRI NILYA. G.F.
6TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE, 1ST STAGE,
MAHAGANAPATHINAGAR,
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU -560 010
…RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION,
QUASHING
THE
IMPUGNED
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.
ORDER
DATED 09.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A) IN I.A. NO. 6 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE C) IN M.C. NO. 4655/2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2026 passed in I.A.No.6 in M.C No.4655/2021 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.
2. The petitioner has filed MC seeking divorce. In that, the wife has filed an application seeking maintenance. The Family Court, by order impugned had granted maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife and Rs.20,000/- to the child. Further, the Family Court observed that the petitioner is at liberty to seek modification of the order, insofar as the maintenance awarded to the respondent/wife is concerned, by placing necessary material to show that she has been gainfully employed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the wife is employed. According to the wife, she
HC-KAR
has resigned from her job. However, she has continued to receive the amount thereafter. It is contended that she is gainfully employed and the said facts are suppressed by her before the trial Court. The maintenance awarded by the Family Court is on the higher side. It is submitted that the petitioner is required to bear the entire educational expenses of the child. It is submitted that the order needs to be modified. It is further submitted that, if this court is inclined to allow the writ petition, some reasonable time may be granted for payment of the arrears.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. According to the husband, the wife is gainfully employed. According to the wife, she lost her job. The Family Court considered this issue and awarded a nominal sum of Rs.15,000/-. However, the Family Court has also given liberty to the petitioner to seek modification of the order once he has material showing that the wife is gainfully employed. In those circumstances, the amount of maintenance granted to the wife by the Family Court cannot be interfered with.
HC-KAR
5. Then coming to the amount that is granted to the child, it is only Rs.20,000/- and educational expenses. The income of the petitioner is Rs.2,08,805/-. Even on that count, no interference is called for with well-considered order passed by the Family Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following
ORDER
i. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Family Court.
ii. Considering the request made by the petitioner, the petitioner shall continue to pay the amount, and as far as the arrears are concerned, they shall be paid within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
iii. If the petitioner fails to pay the amount, the wife is at liberty to file an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking stay of the MC proceedings, and the Family Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.
HC-KAR
iv. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
v. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 MR