MR PRAKASH MURIGEPPA HARAPANAHALLI vs MRS SHWETHA WALVEKAR

- 1 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF APRIL, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO.33410 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

MR. PRAKASH MURIGEPPA
HARAPANAHALLI
S/O MURIGEPPA HARAPANAHALLI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT:
TH
NO.LIG-349, 12 CROSS,
NAVANAGAR,
HUBLI-580 025
CURRENTLY R/A ANRIYA
GREINBERY APARTMENT,
ND
FLAT NO.5203, 2 FLOOR,
JUDICIAL LAYOUT,
ALLALASANDRA, YELAHANKA,
GKVK POST, NEAR JDB
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL
BANGALORE-560 065.
…PETITIONER











Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. KAPIL DIXIT.,ADVOCATE)

AND:


MRS. SHWETHA WALVEKAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
D/O LATE GANGASA WALVEKAR
ST
R/AT NO.G-2, 1 FLOOR,
DHRUVA AURORA APARTMENT,
RD
3 MAIN ROAD, NO.22,
GIDAPPA BLOCK, R.T.NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 032.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. REGO L.P.E.,ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 04.08.2025 UPON IA NO. 2 IN CRL. MISC.
685/2022 PASSED BY THE HONORABLE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND
REDUCE THE QUANTUM OF MAINTENANCE PASSED INORDER
DATED 04.08.2025 UPON IA NO. 2 IN CRL. MISC NO. 685/2022
PASSED BY THE HONORABLE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY
COURT AT BENGALURU FROM RS. 20,000/- TO NIL PRODUCED
AS ANNEXURE-A.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER
The Petitioner-husband has preferred this Writ
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
seeking to quash the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by
the Learned IV Addl. Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, on
IA.No.2 in Crl.Misc.685/2022. By the impugned order, the
Family Court directed the Petitioner to pay interim
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to the Respondent-
wife.

- 3 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


2. The Petitioner herein (husband) was the
Respondent before the Family Court, and the Respondent
herein (wife) was the Petitioner in the Family Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their ranking before this Court.
4. The Petitioner and the Respondent solemnized
their marriage on 04.07.2021, at the Ulavi
Channabasaveshawara Temple in Dharwad, Karnataka.
Both parties were divorcees at the time of the marriage.
5. The matrimonial relationship was short-lived and
marked by significant discord. The Petitioner alleges that
the Respondent treated him primarily as a personal
financier and used threats of criminal complaints to extract
funds.
6. The Petitioner is a qualified software engineer.
However, following organizational restructuring, he lost his
job, with his last working day being 08.09.2023. He
maintains he is currently unemployed and sustains himself
through savings and his parents' pension.

- 4 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


7. The Respondent holds an M.Sc. from Sunway
University, Malaysia. Since January 2023, she has been
employed as Administrative Support (SQA) at Elanco,
Bangalore, earning a salary exceeding Rs.40,000/- per
month . Her mother is a pensioner, and the Respondent
has no dependents.
8. The Petitioner alleges that in May 2022, the
Respondent deserted the matrimonial home without
information. Conversely, the Respondent filed
maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC
on 23.09.2022, seeking Rs.70,000/- per month.
9. The Petitioner contends that the Family Court
failed to consider the Respondent's independent income
and his own lack of employment as disclosed in the
respective Affidavits of Assets and Liabilities.
10. It is further urged that the law regarding interim
maintenance is not intended to equalize the income of
spouses, and given the Respondent's stable employment,

- 5 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


the order is an arbitrary burden upon an unemployed
spouse.
11. Learned counsel for the Respondent-wife has
urged that the marriage was marked by cruelty and
intimidation. She submits the Petitioner has failed to
provide any maintenance since May 2022.
12. While the Respondent is currently undertaking a
research course, it is submitted that the Petitioner is a
highly successful software engineer who was earning a
monthly salary of Rs.4,50,000/- at Innominds Software
Pvt. Ltd. .
13. The Respondent produced Tax Deduction
Statements (TDS) for the years 2022-2024 demonstrating
the Petitioner’s total taxable income was Rs.45,50,288/-
and Rs.66,29,532/- respectively.
14. It is further contended by the respondent that
the Petitioner owns a 3BHK house in Yelahanka and two
properties in the United Kingdom.

- 6 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


15. Heard learned counsels appearing for both
parties.
16. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
has carefully perused the impugned order and the
underlying material on record. The primary issue for
adjudication is whether the interim maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- per month is just and reasonable.
17. Regarding Capacity to Pay, the law laid down in
Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324 is unequivocal: an
able-bodied husband is presumed capable of earning and
cannot evade his legal obligation by merely citing
unemployment. The Petitioner’s TDS records demonstrate
a substantial earning capacity. His professional
qualifications and past lucrative income signify a continued
capacity to meet matrimonial obligations.
18. On Wife’s Income, it is well-settled that gainful
employment is not an absolute bar to awarding
maintenance. The Court must assess if the income is

- 7 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


sufficient to sustain a lifestyle commensurate with that
enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Given the Petitioner’s
documented monthly income during the marriage, the
Respondent’s salary of Rs.40,000/- is comparatively
modest and does not bridge the status gap.
19. Regarding Quantum, the Respondent initially
sought Rs.70,000/-. The Family Court judiciously reduced
this to Rs.20,000/-, which this Court finds to be a
conservative and supportive maintenance amount
intended to prevent destitution relative to the Petitioner's
status .
20. This Court finds that the learned Family Judge
has correctly applied the principles enunciated in

Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324. There is no
jurisdictional error or patent illegality warranting
interference. The order of the Family Court is just and
reasonable.
21. In view of the above, the Court proceeds to
pass the following:

- 8 -
WP No. 33410 of 2025


ORDER
(i). The Writ Petition is hereby dismissed .
(ii). The impugned order dated 04.08.2025 passed
by the IV Addl. Principal Family Judge, Bengaluru, in
Crl.Misc.No.685/2022, is upheld.
(iii). The Petitioner is directed to clear all arrears
of interim maintenance within three months from the
date of this order.



SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE





bnv