SRI NEHIL GAUR vs SMT AYUSHI SRIVASTAVA

1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.31568 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. NEHIL GAUR,
S/O SRI ASHOK KUMAR GAUR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: RAGUKUL, 1K22,
MAHAVEER NAGAR EXTENSION,
KOTA, RAJASTHAN - 324 009.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. OMAR SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
SMT. AYUSHI SRIVASTAVA,
W/O SRI NEHIL GAUR
D/O ASHOK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT: B5 GREEN ORCHARD APARTMENT,
40TH MAIN ROAD,
ROYAL RESIDENCY LAYOUT,
NYNAPPANAHALLI, BTM 4TH STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHILASH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. KAPIL DIXIT, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
16.07.2025 PASSED BY THE 1 ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN CRL.MIS.NO.573/2023 ON
I.A.NO.II (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
25.09.2026
ORDERS ON , COMING ON THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:

2
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
This writ petition is the outcome of the order passed by
the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru, on I.A.No.II in Crl.Misc.No.573/2023 dated
16.07.2025.
2. Heard Sri.Omar Shariff, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Sri.Abhilash, who represented Sri.Kapil
Dixit, learned counsel on record for the respondent.
3. As the relationship between the parties is not in
dispute, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as husband
and wife.
4. Wife, as per the material available on record, filed
Crl.Misc.No.573/2023, which is pending before the Court of
I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking
maintenance. In the said case, she moved an Interlocutory
Application i.e., I.A.No.II seeking interim maintenance of
Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Family Court through the impugned
order directed husband to pay wife a sum of Rs.12,000/- per
month towards interim maintenance and aggrieved by the
liability thus imposed, husband filed this writ petition.

3
5. Making his submission on the merits of the matter,
learned counsel for the petitioner/husband contended that
parties entered into marital relationship in the year 2020.
Husband always supported wife for everything she does and
he took good care of her health and supported her to pursue
her academics. Wife never attended household chores. That
apart, wife was always intending to lead lavish life and was
demanding huge sum of money for doing so. She started
harassing husband in many ways and she also threatened
husband of filing cases. Though there is no necessity for any
financial assistance from anyone, yet wife, only with an
intention to harass her husband, filed an application seeking
maintenance. Wife is a working woman and thus there is no
necessity for the husband to pay any amount to her towards
maintenance. That apart, when husband established the
aspect of cruelty on part of his wife, considering the same, in a
petition filed by the husband seeking dissolution of marriage,
decree of divorce was granted. Without taking note of all these
facts, Family Court directed petitioner/husband to pay
respondent/wife a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards
interim maintenance and as such direction is unsustainable in

4
the eye of law, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel
ultimately sought to allow the writ petition.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel who
represented the wife submitted that no doubt his client worked
for some time at M/s.Tata Consultancy Services Limited and
M/s. Celegence Systems Private Limited, however as her
health condition did not permit her to do job, she stopped
working and thus she has no source of earnings as on the date
of filing of the case for maintenance. Learned counsel thereby
stated that the writ petition is not maintainable.
7. In reply to that submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner/husband contended that in M.C. No.87/2024, which
was filed by husband seeking dissolution of marriage by a
decree of divorce, wife got examined herself as RW.1 and
during the course of cross-examination she admitted her
occupation and though the certified copy of deposition where
such admission was made was produced before the Family
Court, Family Court failed to consider the points elicited during
the course of cross-examination.
8. I.A.No.II seeking interim maintenance was filed on
13.07.2023. At para 9 of the impugned order, discussing about

5
the affidavit filed by wife in respect of her assets and liabilities,
the income tax returns and the bank statement, Family Court
observed as under:
"The petitioner has produced Income Tax
Returns for the year 2022-23 and total Income is
Rs.4,94,730/-. She has produced her bank
statement for the year 2020-21 which shows that,
she was receiving salary from M/s. Tata Consultancy
Services Limited and the salary raised from
Rs.76,538/- and in the month of March 2021 it was
Rs.47,746/- and in June 2021 it was Rs.62,594/- and
December 2021 it was Rs.51,141/-. In the year 2022
it shows she was receiving salary from M/s.
Celegence Systems Pvt. Ltd., and she has received
salary of Rs.1,04,148/. She has also produced
discharge summary to show that, in the year 2023,
she had some medical problems with regard to
Uterus and she was hospitalised and later, she was
taking constant treatment for her health issues."
9. The Certified Copy of the deposition in respect of
cross-examination of RW.1 in M.C.No.87/2024 reveals that the
wife deposed before the Court as under:
"I was working in TCS in the year 2023. It is
true to suggest that on 17.05.2024, I was working at
LNW India Solutions. Before 17.05.2024, I was
working with Celegency Systems."

6
10. The aforementioned statements clearly goes to
show that by the date of filing of I.A.No.II, as per her own
statement, wife was working at TCS and thereafter she started
working at LNW India Solutions. Such being the case, she
cannot contend that she has no source of earnings as on the
date of filing of I.A.No.II seeking interim maintenance and that
she is required to be maintained by her husband. No doubt
husband failed to file his affidavit disclosing his assets and
liabilities. However, such failure cannot form sole ground to
grant maintenance. In the case on hand, as prima facie
material reveals that wife was working as on the date of her
claim for interim maintenance, this Court is of the view that
the impugned order through which interim maintenance was
granted in favour of the wife to be payable by husband is
unsustainable and therefore required to be set aside. Thus, the
following
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the Court of I Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.II in
Crl.Misc. No.573/2023 dated 16.07.2025 is set aside.

7
(iii) The Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bengaluru, is directed to dispose of Crl.Misc.
No.573/2023 basing on its own merits considering the
evidence produced without being influenced by any of the
observations made by this Court regarding merits of the
matter in this order.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM