Karnataka High Court
WP/19543/2026 of SRI. RAVINDRA M., Vs SANDYA KUMARI on 9 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010436102026 NC: 2026:KHC:49116 WP No. 19526 of 2026 C/W WP No. 19543 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. 19526 OF 2026 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 19543
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. 19526 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 19543 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
IN WP No. 19526/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVINDRA M.,
S/O LATE PARAMESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O HALEPETE, KANTAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPAT TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANIL R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SANDYA KUMARI
W/O SRI. RAVINDRA M.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
DOOR NO. 5-124B3,
VASUKI NAGAR, PUTTUR VILLAGE,
SANTEKATTE POST,
UDUPI-576 101
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHASHANK C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VENUGOPALA M.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
DISMISS IA NO. 17 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT WIFE VIDE
ANNEXURE-A UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE
ACT.
IN WP NO. 19543/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVINDRA M.,
S/O LATE PARAMESHWAR,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O HALEPETE, KANTAPURA VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANIL R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SANDYA KUMARI
W/O SRI. RAVINDRA M.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
DOOR NO. 5-124B3,
VASUKI NAGAR, PUTTUR VILLAGE,
SANTEKATTE POST,
UDUPI-576 101
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SHASHANK C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.VENUGOPALA M.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED:17/6/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, UDUPI, ON IA NO.20 IN
MC NO. 113/2024, VIDE ANNEXURE A WHEREBY THE
PETITIONERS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 24 OF HINDU
HC-KAR
MARRIAGE
ACT
SEEKING
INTERIM
MAINTENANCE
AND
LITIGATION EXPENSES HAS BEEN REJECTED.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 orders dated 17.06.2026 passed on I.A. Nos.17 and 20 in MC No.113/2024 by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Udupi, the husband is before this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as husband and wife.
3. The Family Court, by the impugned order, had directed the husband to pay the wife Rs.7,500/- per month as interim maintenance from the date of application until the disposal of the case, and to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
4. I.A. No. 17 was filed by the wife seeking maintenance for herself and the daughter. I.A. No. 20 was filed by the husband seeking maintenance for himself.
HC-KAR
5. It is the case of the husband that the wife is staying in the matrimonial home. She has several properties, and there is no source of income for him. As such, he is entitled to maintenance and is not in a position to pay maintenance to the wife. The Family Court, by order impugned had rejected the case of the husband and granted maintenance to the wife.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the Family Court has rightly considered all the aspects and, considering the fact that it is the responsibility of the husband to take care of the wife, the Family Court had granted a meager amount of Rs.7,500/-. Further, when she is not in a position to maintain herself, the question of granting maintenance to the husband could not arise. It is submitted that the order impugned does not require any interference at the hands of this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Family Court failed to consider the contentions raised by the husband. In the order, the Family Court failed to
HC-KAR
give any finding on the financial status of the wife and the husband. When the properties were referenced, the Family Court observed that the respondent is the owner of her parents' properties. The husband has produced the RTC and mutation extracts. It may be true that the respondent may receive a share of her parents' property in the future. As of today, there are no materials before the Court. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Family Court has to give a clear finding regarding the financial status of both the parties and, considering the said income, an order has to be passed. In this case, the financial status of the husband and wife has not been determined by the Family Court. Considering the rival contentions of both parties, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order impugned dated 17.06.2026 passed on I.A.Nos.17 and 20 in MC No.113/2024 by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Udupi, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Family Court for fresh consideration.
HC-KAR
ii. The Family Court shall consider the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 based on the respective contentions and documents placed before the Court, and shall pass a reasoned order. iii. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. iv. Pending IA’s if any in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 *AK