Karnataka High Court
WP/24739/2025 of SMT. TRISHALA S G, Vs SMT. B V MANJULA on 14 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:35834 WP No. 24739 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 24739 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. TRISHALA S.G., W/O SRI SHEETAL KUMAR, D/O DODAPPA MUNNOLI AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 24739 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT. TRISHALA S.G.,
W/O SRI SHEETAL KUMAR,
D/O DODAPPA MUNNOLI
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
2.
KUM. SAACHI S.G.,
D/O SRI SHEETAL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.
3.
KUM. SAANVI S.G,
D/O SRI SHEETAL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS
4.
KUM. SHREYAS S.G.,
S/O SRI SHEETAL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE
SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY
THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN BY
SMT. TRISHALA S.G, 1ST PETITIONER.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.786, NEAR JSS SCHOOL,
KONANAKUNTE,
Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI B
K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
BENGALURU – 560 062.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VINOD PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SMT. B.V.MANJULA
D/O P. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT, MIG - 6,
BEEDI COLONY ROAD,
OPP. KHM DIAMOND APARTMENT,
BANDE MUTT, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 060.
2.
S.G.SANAT,
S/O G.M.SHEETAL KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN,
SMT. B.V.MANJULA, RESPONDENT NO.1.
3.
SRI G.M.SHEETAL KUMAR
S/O MALLINATH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.786,
NEAR JSS SCHOOL, KONANAKUNTE,
BENGALURU – 560 062.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHABALESHWAR CHITRIGEMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR R-1;
R-2 IS MINOR AND REPRESENTED BY R-1;
HC-KAR
SRI R.V.RAJASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 07/07/2025, PASSED BY THE JMFC(Tr. Ct-II) AT BANGALORE, IN C.MISC.
NO.
59/2018,
REJECTING
THE
APPLICATION
OF
THE
PETITIONER TO COME ON RECORD AT ANNEXURE-M TO THE
WRIT PETITION; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE COURT BELOW TO ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND PERMIT
THE PETITIONERS TO COME ON RECORD.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
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
The petitioners are before the Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court which rejects an application filed by the petitioners to come on record in C. Misc. No. 59 of 2018.
2. Heard Sri Vinod Prasad, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri Mahabaleswar Chitrigemath, learned counsel
HC-KAR
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri R.V.Rajashekara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The 3rd respondent is the husband of two women, the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. The issue is not with regard to who is whose wife. The 1st and 2nd respondents initiate proceedings seeking maintenance at the hands of the 3rd respondent/husband before the concerned Court invoking the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioners, being the first wife and three children contending that they would be left in the lurch if the maintenance is awarded by the concerned Court, on a petition filed by the second wife, sought to implead themselves into the proceedings, which is rejected. Hence, the petitioners are at the doors of this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the 3rd respondent/husband gets salary of ₹50,000/- per month and the second wife/1st respondent is also
HC-KAR
working and earns ₹50,000/- per month, as they are colleagues under the same employer. Therefore, would submit that in the event of such eventualities of awarding maintenance, it is necessary that the petitioners should be heard in the matter.
5. Though, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent puts up vehement opposition, notwithstanding the same, I deem it appropriate to permit these petitioners to implead themselves as party respondents, as the first wife and the children who are dependent upon the 3rd respondent/husband should not be left to lurch, in the event, maintenance of ₹30,000/- is granted to the second wife and her child, more so in the light of the fact that the 1st respondent herself earns ₹50,000/-, as that of the 3rd respondent/husband. In that light the order of the concerned Court is necessary to be obliterated.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Order dated 07-07-2025 rejecting the application of the petitioners in C.Misc.No.59 of 2018 stand quashed.
HC-KAR
(iii) The petitioners are permitted to come on record in the proceedings before the concerned Court and contest the matter.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77