SRI. MATHEN THOMAS THOPPIL vs SMT. THRESI EMMANUEL RAMAPURAM
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
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.10663 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.21426 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
WRIT PETITION NO.21834 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
IN WP No.10663/2025
BETWEEN:
THRESI EMMANUEL RAMAPURAM
WIFE OF MATHEN THOMAS THOPPIL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.802,
SILVERLAKE TERRACE APARTMENT,
167 (OLD NO.55),
RICHMOND ROAD,
NEAR TRINITY CIRCLE,
ASHOKNAGAR
BENGALURU-560 025.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDANT S.DARIRA FOR
SRI. ARUN GOVINDARAJ.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
MATHEN THOMAS THOPPIL
SON OF THOMAS VARGHESE,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 902,
NITESH FLUSHING MEADOWS APARTMENT,
WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU – 560 067.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ASHIKA GURUNATH FOR
SRI. TEJAS AND SUHAS G.,ADVOCATES)
- 2 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 02.07.2024 IN G AND WC NO.120/2023 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU ON INTERIM APPLICATION NO.X, (ANNEXURE G) AND
ETC.
IN WP NO.21426/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. MATHEN THOMAS THOPPIL
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O SRI. THOMAS VARGHESE
RESIDING AT: 902,
NITESH FLUSHING MEADOWS APARTMENT,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE - 560 067.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ASHIKA GURUNATH FOR
SRI. SUHAS G.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT. THRESI EMMANUEL RAMAPURAM,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
W/O SRI. MATHEN THOMAS THOPPIL,
RESIDING AT: 802,
SILVER TERRACE APARTMENT,
167,(OLD NO.55), RICHMOND ROAD,
NEAR TRINITY CIRCLE, ASHOK NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SIDDANT S. DARIRA FOR
SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ.,ADVOCATES)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 02.06.2024 AT ANNEXURE-A IN I.A NO. X
PASSED BY THE IST ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT
BENGALURU, IN G. AND W.C. NO. 120 OF 2023.
- 3 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
IN WP NO.21834/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI MATHEN THOMAS THOPPIL
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O SRI. THOMAS VARGHESE,
RESIDING AT:902,
NITESH FLUSHING MEADOWS APARTMENT,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560 067.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ASHIKA GURUNATH FOR
SRI. SOMANATHA H.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT THRESI EMMANUEL RAMAPURAM
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
W/O SRI. MATHEN THOMAS THOPPIL,
RESIDING AT:802,
SILVER TERRACE APARTMENT,
167,(OLD NO.55),
RICHMOND ROAD,
NEAR TRINITY CIRCLE,
ASHOK NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.SIDDANT S DARIRA FOR
SRI.ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATES)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DTD 02.07.24 AT ANNEXURE-A IN IA NO. III PASSED BY
THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU
IN G AND WC NO. 120 OF 2023 AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 10.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
- 4 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
The W.P.10663 is filed by the wife seeking to issue
writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 02.07.2024
passed in G & WC.No.120/2023 on I.A.No.X passed by the
I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru,(‘the
Family Court’ for short) and further seeks issuance of a
writ of mandamus directing the husband to pay a sum of
Rs.30,000/- per month to each of the minor sons towards
maintenance, apart from educational expenses at actuals
to be paid directly to the educational institution.
The W.P.No.21426/2024 is filed by the husband
seeking to issue writ of certiorari to quash the impugned
order dated 02.07.2024 passed on I.A.No.X in G &
WC.No.120/2023 passed by the Family Court on the
ground that the same is excessive, arbitrary and
unsustainable.
The W.P.No.21834/2024 is filed by the father
seeking to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned
- 5 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
orders dated 02.07.2024 (Annexure A) passed in
I.A.No.III and dated 27.04.2024 (Annexure B) passed in
I.A.No.XI by the Family Court in G & WC.No.120/2023,
and to grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems
fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner / wife / mother in
W.P.No.10663/2025 is the respondent in W.P.21426/2024
and W.P.No.21834/2024 and the
respondent/husband/father in W.P.No.10663/2025 is the
petitioner in W.P.21426/2024 and W.P.No.21834/2024.
3. For convenience of reference, the parties are
referred as husband/father and wife/mother.
4. The common facts in all the writ petitions are
that:-
The husband/father and the wife/mother were
married on 02.09.2006 at Chennai in accordance with
Christian rites and ceremonies and thereafter relocated to
the United States of America on 16.09.2006. Out of the
- 6 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
wedlock, two sons were born, namely Thomas, born on
20.07.2012, aged about 12 years, and Emmanuel, born on
14.04.2017, aged about 7 years at the time of filing the
writ petitions, who are presently in the care and custody of
the Petitioner. It is the case of the Petitioner that
throughout the matrimonial life, she was subjected to
physical, verbal, mental, emotional and financial abuse at
the hands of the husband, and that in March 2022,
following a dispute concerning the husband’s alleged
infidelity, the husband assaulted the wife and their elder
son and thereafter left the matrimonial home for Chennai,
deliberately withholding financial support, thereby
compelling the Petitioner to reside with her cousin and
depend on financial assistance from her family for
sustenance.
5. Subsequently, on 05.04.2023, the father
instituted proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act
in G&WC No.120/2023 before the Family Court seeking
custody of the minor children, to which the wife filed her
objections (Annexures-A and B). Parallel proceedings have
- 7 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
also been initiated by both parties, wherein the wife has
sought dissolution of marriage and the husband has
sought restitution of conjugal rights, both pending before
the said Family Court. In the said custody proceedings, an
ex parte interim visitation order dated 06.04.2023
permitted the husband/father to visit the children every
Sunday from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.; however, by order
dated 14.12.2023, the learned Family Court modified the
visitation to the first and third Sundays of every month
during the same hours and further directed the
Respondent to pay Rs.40,000/- towards maintenance and
to bear the educational expenses of the minor children
(Annexure-C).
6. Aggrieved thereby, the father preferred
W.P.No.3657/2024 (GM-FC) before the Co-ordinate bench
of this Court, and by order dated 21.02.2024, this Court
set aside the order dated 14.12.2023 and remanded the
matter to the Family Court with liberty to the mother to file
an application for maintenance, while modifying visitation
to the second and fourth Sundays from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00
- 8 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
p.m. (Annexure-D). Pursuant thereto, the mother filed an
I.A.No.X under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act
read with Section 36 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, in
G&WC No.120/2023, seeking maintenance of
Rs.1,85,000/- per month and litigation expenses of
Rs.5,00,000/-, to which the husband filed objections
(Annexures-E and F). The learned Family Court, by order
dated 02.07.2024, partly allowed the said application,
directing payment of Rs.40,000/- per month as interim
maintenance, Rs.60,000/- per month towards educational
expenses, arrears from the date of application, and
litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/- (Annexure-G). The
husband has challenged the said order in
W.P.No.21426/2024, which is pending consideration
(Annexure-H), and the wife being aggrieved, has instituted
the W.P.No.10663/2025 for enhancement of maintenance.
7. Insofar as custody and visitation are concerned,
the husband who had instituted G&WC No.120/2023
seeking custody of the minor children had also filed
- 9 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
interlocutory applications in I.A.No.III and I.A.No.XI
seeking interim custody, including custody during
vacations, and for expanded visitation rights. The Family
Court, upon consideration of the material on record and
interaction with the minor children, by order dated
02.07.2024, declined the prayer for interim custody.
8. By the very same order, the Family Court
regulated the visitation rights of the husband by restricting
his access to the minor children to the first and third
Saturdays of every month between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00
p.m., to be exercised in the visitation room of the Family
Court, and also granted limited telephonic and video call
interaction. Aggrieved by the rejection of interim custody
and the restrictive nature of visitation, the husband has
challenged the said order in W.P.No.28134/2024.
9. The learned counsel for the wife in
W.P.No.10663/2025 would contend that the impugned
order was passed mechanically and failed to accord
paramount consideration to the welfare and best interests
- 10 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
of the minor children. It is urged that the Family Court has
erred in arbitrarily quantifying educational expenses at
Rs.60,000/- per month without considering the actual and
progressively increasing costs of education in a reputed
institution. Despite the husband admitting that he has been
bearing educational expenses, the Family Court failed to
direct payment of such expenses at actuals directly to the
educational institution, and instead fixed an inadequate
amount, thereby placing an unjust burden upon the wife,
who is stated to be unemployed and without independent
income. The wife also contends that the award of
Rs.40,000/- per month towards maintenance for herself
and two children is wholly inadequate, particularly having
regard to the standard of living and cost of living in
Bengaluru.
10. The wife further contends that the Family Court
has failed to properly assess the true income and financial
capacity of the husband, who is alleged to have suppressed
material particulars relating to bonus, investments and
- 11 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
other sources of income, and whose liabilities, including
housing loan, have subsequently been discharged. It is also
contended that the conduct of the husband in discontinuing
financial support and restricting access to financial
resources has not been duly appreciated. Further, the
Family Court failed to consider relevant factors, including
extracurricular expenses and the actual needs of the
children, and is therefore unjust, inadequate and liable to
be modified.
11. The learned counsel for the husband in
W.P.No.21426/2024 would contend that the impugned
order is erroneous, arbitrary and passed without proper
appreciation of the material on record. It is urged that the
Family Court has incorrectly taken the gross salary of
Rs.2,41,760/- as the basis for determining maintenance,
without considering that the net income is substantially
lower after statutory deductions. The Family Court has
failed to take into account the financial liabilities of the
husband, particularly the monthly EMI of Rs.44,710/-
- 12 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
towards a housing loan, and other expenses, thereby
imposing an excessive and unsustainable financial burden.
The husband also contends that the wife is gainfully
employed as a Director of a private company and is
deriving income from other sources, which has not been
properly considered.
12. It is further contended that the wife is highly
qualified, possessing advanced degrees in finance and
accountancy, and is capable of maintaining herself. The
Family Court is stated to have failed to draw adverse
inference against the wife for non-disclosure of income tax
returns and financial details, despite proceedings initiated
for such disclosure. It is also contended that the direction
to pay Rs.60,000/- per month towards educational
expenses is unwarranted, as the husband has been directly
paying school fees, including substantial payments towards
the academic year 2024–2025, and therefore, the direction
to pay such amount to the wife is unjustified. On these
- 13 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
grounds, the husband seeks quashing of the impugned
order.
13. The learned counsel for the petitioner/father in
W.P.No.21834/2024 would contend that that insofar as
I.A.No.III filed under Section 12 of the Guardian and
Wards Act, 1890, read with Section 151 of the CPC is
concerned, the he had sought interim custody/visitation
rights in respect of the minor children. However, the Family
Court has granted visitation rights to the father only on the
first and third Saturdays of each month.The visitation so
granted, i.e., only on two Saturdays in a month between
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the designated visitation room
of the Family Court, is grossly inadequate, mechanical, and
does not subserve the welfare and best interests of the
minor children.
14. It is contended that the impugned arrangement,
being limited to approximately 3 hours per visit and
restricted to a controlled Court environment, effectively
amounts to only about 24 visits per year, which is wholly
- 14 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
insufficient for meaningful parent-child interaction and fails
to facilitate development of emotional bonding between the
father and the minor children. The Family Court has failed
to appreciate that the welfare of the minor children is the
paramount consideration in matters of custody and
visitation, and that denial of adequate interaction with the
father would adversely affect the emotional well-being of
the children and may lead to loss of affection and
detachment over time.
15. It is contended that the petitioner had also
sought more liberal visitation rights, including interim
custody during holidays and vacations, access on birthdays
of the children, as well as birthdays of the Petitioner and
grandparents, and unrestricted telephonic access;
however, the same has not been adequately considered by
the learned Family Court. The impugned order, therefore,
suffers from serious infirmities inasmuch as it fails to
balance the competing interests and does not meaningfully
address the welfare-centric approach mandated under law.
- 15 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
16. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
17. This Court has given its anxious consideration to
the rival submissions in W.P.No.10663/2025 and
W.P.21426/2024 and perused the material on record. It is
not in dispute that the impugned order is one granting
interim maintenance pending adjudication of the main
proceedings. The Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, has laid down that
maintenance must be realistic, just and commensurate
with the financial capacity of the husband, and sufficient to
ensure that the wife and children are able to maintain a
standard of living similar to that of the matrimonial home.
It has also emphasized the necessity of disclosure of assets
and liabilities and holistic consideration of all relevant
factors.
18. In the present case, the Family Court has taken
into account the income of the husband, who is earning a
gross monthly salary of Rs.2,41,760/-. The contention that
only the net salary ought to be considered cannot be
- 16 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
accepted in a rigid manner. The overall earning capacity
and financial status of the husband are relevant
considerations. The plea of the husband regarding
deductions towards housing loan EMI and other liabilities
cannot override his primary obligation to maintain his wife
and minor children. Financial commitments voluntarily
undertaken cannot be used to defeat the legitimate claim
of dependents. At the same time, the allegation of the wife
regarding suppression of additional income has not been
substantiated by cogent material at this stage. The Family
Court has proceeded on the basis of affidavits of assets
and liabilities, which is in consonance with the law laid
down in Rajnesh v. Neha.
19. The contention of the husband that substantial
deductions towards housing loan EMI and other financial
liabilities ought to proportionately reduce his maintenance
obligation cannot be accepted in its entirety. Repayments
towards loans, particularly those resulting in acquisition or
creation of assets, are in the nature of voluntary financial
- 17 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
commitments and cannot take precedence over the
statutory obligation to maintain the wife and minor
children. While genuine and unavoidable liabilities may be
borne in mind to assess overall financial capacity, such
deductions cannot be permitted to dilute the husband’s
primary duty of ensuring a reasonable and dignified
standard of living to his dependents.
20. However, this Court finds that the quantum of
maintenance to the children determined by the Family
Court requires modification. While the contention of the
wife that the amount awarded is inadequate merits
acceptance to a certain extent, the objections raised by the
husband regarding his financial liabilities and overall
obligations also require due consideration. The
determination of maintenance must strike a balance
between the needs of the dependents and the paying
capacity of the husband. The consolidated sum of Rs.
40,000/- awarded towards maintenance of wife and two
minor children does not reflect such balanced assessment,
- 18 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
particularly having regard to the cost of living in a
metropolitan city like Bengaluru.
21. Insofar as educational expenses are concerned,
the Family Court has fixed a sum of Rs.60,000/- per
month. Such fixation, in the opinion of this Court, is
fundamentally flawed. Educational expenses are not static
and cannot be subjected to a rigid upper limit. The
expenses towards education depend upon the fee structure
prescribed by the particular institution, including tuition
fees, transport charges, books, uniforms and other
incidental charges. Therefore, any artificial capping of such
expenses would be contrary to the welfare of the children.
22. This Court is of the considered view that the
husband cannot be permitted to contend that he will pay
only a fixed sum towards education. If the children are
studying in a particular institution, the father is bound to
bear the actual educational expenses as demanded by the
institution. Payment of educational expenses directly to the
- 19 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
school authorities ensures transparency and continuity in
the education of the children. However, such payment
cannot be treated as a substitute for maintenance.
Educational expenses and maintenance operate in distinct
spheres. While educational expenses cater to schooling,
maintenance addresses the day-to-day sustenance and
well-being of the wife and children. Both are independent
and must be provided for adequately.
23. The impugned order, by fixing Rs.60,000/- as a
composite figure towards educational and extracurricular
expenses, fails to appreciate this distinction and therefore
warrants interference. The contention of the husband that
the wife is gainfully employed has not been substantiated
by acceptable material. Mere assertions without
documentary proof cannot be accepted at this stage to
deny maintenance. However, her educational qualifications
and potential earning capacity may be considered at the
stage of final adjudication. At the interim stage, the
- 20 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
immediate financial needs of the wife and children must
take precedence.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the opinion that the impugned order warrants
modification. Having regard to the income of the husband,
the needs of the minor children, and the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate
to re-determine the quantum of maintenance by awarding
a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month to each of the minor
children and Rs.40,000/- per month to the wife, in
substitution of the consolidated amount awarded by the
Family Court, while maintaining the direction regarding
payment of educational expenses at actuals.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
02.07.2024 passed by the Family Court warrants
interference and modification to the extent indicated
herein.
- 21 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
26. Having given anxious consideration to the rival
submissions, this Court in W.P.No.21834/2024 is of the
considered view that the scope of interference under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, in matters arising out of
interlocutory orders relating to custody and visitation, is
limited. Unless the order passed by the Family Court is
shown to be perverse, arbitrary or suffering from
jurisdictional error, this Court would be slow to interfere
with the discretionary exercise undertaken by the Court of
first instance, particularly in matters concerning welfare of
minor children.
27. It is trite that in proceedings under the Guardian
and Wards Act, 1890, the paramount consideration is the
welfare and best interests of the minor children. In the
present case, the Family Court has taken into consideration
the pleadings, the material placed on record, as well as the
interaction held with the minor children. The Family Court
has recorded that the children expressed reluctance and
discomfort, and has also noted the nature of allegations
- 22 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
between the parties. Based on such assessment, the
Family Court has declined interim custody and has
structured a regulated visitation mechanism.
28. Insofar as denial of interim custody is
concerned, this Court finds that the same is based on a
prima facie assessment of the circumstances prevailing as
on the date of the impugned order. At an interlocutory
stage, where the matter is yet to be fully adjudicated, the
Family Court is justified in adopting a cautious and
calibrated approach. Such an approach cannot be termed
as either illegal or perverse so as to warrant interference.
29. With regard to the grievance that the visitation
granted is restrictive, it is to be noted that the Family
Court has consciously provided for supervised visitation
within the Court premises, having regard to the attending
circumstances and the expressed inclination of the
children. The nature, duration and place of visitation are
matters falling within the discretion of the Family Court,
- 23 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
which is presently dealing with the matter and is better
placed to assess the welfare requirements of the children.
30. It is further observed that the contention that
the visitation arrangement is insufficient to foster
meaningful bonding cannot, in the facts of the present
case, be a ground to interfere at this stage. The
arrangement made by the Family Court is only an interim
measure, subject to variation upon change in
circumstances or upon further material being placed on
record. It is always open to the parties to seek modification
before the Family Court, which is empowered to revisit the
arrangement in the best interests of the children.
31. This Court is also of the view that the interaction
with the children and their expressed comfort levels cannot
be lightly disregarded at this stage. While such interaction
may not be conclusive, it certainly constitutes a relevant
factor for determining interim arrangements. The Family
Court, having had the advantage of directly interacting
- 24 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
with the children, has exercised its discretion in a manner
that balances caution with limited access.
32. In the absence of any material to demonstrate
that the discretion exercised by the Family Court is
arbitrary, capricious or contrary to settled principles
governing custody matters, this Court finds no justification
to substitute its own view in place of that of the Family
Court.
33. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is not
intended to re-appreciate the material or to substitute a
different visitation framework merely because another view
is possible. Interference is warranted only when there is
patent illegality or manifest injustice, neither of which is
made out in the present case. In the absence of any
material to demonstrate that the discretion exercised by
the Family Court is arbitrary, capricious or contrary to
settled principles governing custody matters, this Court
- 25 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
finds no justification to interfere with the impugned order
dated 02.07.2024 at this stage.
34. However, having regard to the nature of the
dispute and the interests of the minor children, this Court
is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by
directing expeditious disposal of the main petition pending
before the Family Court. Accordingly, while upholding the
impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the Family Court to dispose of G & W.C.
No.120/2023, as expeditiously as possible in accordance
with the Child Access Custody Guidelines parenting plan,
2025 by the Calcutta High Court guidelines which is also
adopted by the Division Bench of this Court.
35. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:-
ORDER
In W.P.No.10663/2025 and W.P.No.21426/2024:
(i) W.P.No.10663/2025 and W.P.No.
21426/2024 are disposed of.
- 26 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
(ii) The impugned order dated 02.07.2024
passed on I.A.No.X in G&WC No.120/2023 by
the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru, is modified .
(iii) The husband shall pay maintenance of
Rs.15,000/- per month to each of the minor
children and Rs.40,000/- per month to the
wife, aggregating to Rs.70,000/- per month,
payable from the date of application.
(iv) The husband shall, in addition, pay the
entire educational expenses of the minor
children at actuals, as and when demanded by
the respective school/educational institutions,
without any monetary cap, and such payment
shall be made directly to the institutions.
(v) In the event the wife has already incurred
and paid any educational expenses of the
minor children to the concerned
school/educational institutions, the husband
shall reimburse the same to the wife, upon
production of proof of such payment.
- 27 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
(vi) The husband shall also bear reasonable
expenses towards extracurricular activities,
books, uniforms, medical needs of the
children.
(vii) The direction regarding payment of
Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses shall
remain unaltered.
In W.P.No.21834/2024:
(i) The W.P.No.21834/2024 is disposed of.
(ii) The impugned order dated 02.07.2024
passed by the Family Court in G & W.C.
No.120/2023 on I.A.No.III and I.A.No.XI is
upheld.
(iii) The Family Court shall dispose of the main
petition as expeditiously as possible.
(iv) Both parties shall co-operate and ensure
that the children are not subjected to any
distress.
- 28 -
WP No. 10663 of 2025
C/W WP No. 21426 of 2024
WP No. 21834 of 2024
It is made clear that the observation made herein are
only for the purpose of all the writ petitions and shall not
influence the final adjudication in G & WC.No.120/2023.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
bnv