MRS PRATHIMA N J vs MR ROOBEL SUDHAKAR

- 1 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 5390 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MRS. PRATHIMA N. J.
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
W/O. MR. ROOBEL SUDHAKAR,
D/O. MR. N.S. JEEVARATHNA,
R/A. C/O. MR. N.S. JEEVARATHNA,
DEEPAK PAPERS COMPOUND
DA. RA. BENDRE ROAD,
RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR,
TUMAKURU-572102.
ALSO RESIDING AT:
NO. 52/6, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
NEAR S.N. SCHOOL, NANJAPPA LAYOUT,
ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560030.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NITESH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SIDDHARTH B. M.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
MR. ROOBEL SUDHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
S/O. MR. J.C. ROOBEL,
R/AT. FR-F1, 4TH FLOOR,
C, SHRI SAI ROYAL APARTMENT,
NO.616, ROYAL COUNTY LAYOUT,
8TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR,
KOTHANUR, BANGALORE-560078.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.V. FERNANDES, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BHAKTAVACHALA, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFYING DATED
28.01.2026 IN OS NO. 144/2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE III
ADDL. PRL. FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE UPON THE
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE DIVORCE ACT. i.e.,
ANNEXURE-A AND ENHANCE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE TO
RS.60,000/- FROM THE DATE OF APPLICATION.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
25.09.2026
FOR ORDERS ON , COMING ON THIS DAY,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking the Court to modify
the order which is passed by the Court of III Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A. No.III in
O.S.No.144/2025 dated 28.01.2026.
2. Heard Sri.Hitesh D., who represented
Sri.Siddharth B.M., learned counsel on record for the
petitioner as well as Sri.V.V.Fernandes, who represented
Sri.Bhaktavachala, learned counsel on record for the
respondent.
3. For the sake of convenience of discussion, writ
petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as the 'wife' and
the respondent as 'husband'.

- 3 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
4. In the proceedings that are pending between
the parties, i.e. in O.S.No.144/2025 before the Court of III
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, which
was filed for grant of maintenance and for permanent
injunction, wife moved an Interlocutory Application which
came to be numbered as I.A.No.III under Section 36 of
the Indian Divorce Act, seeking the Court to direct
husband to pay her and her daughter a sum of
Rs.60,000/- per month towards maintenance. The Court
decided the application and directed the husband to pay
Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance of the child.
The claim by the wife was rejected. Aggrieved by the
decision thus taken, wife filed this writ petition.
5. Advancing arguments, learned counsel who
represented wife contended that the marriage between the
parties went on as per Christian rites and customs.
Husband was working as Clerk in State Bank of India by
the time of marriage. Subsequently, he got promoted as
Senior Associate. As of now he is drawing around
Rs.1,30,000/- per month as salary. On the other hand wife

- 4 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
works as Data Entry Operator and earns meagre sum of
Rs.15,000/- per month. Out of the salary she receives, she
is paying Rs.9,500/- per month as rent. The marital
relationship broke due to the attitude of the husband.
Husband became addicted to gambling, smoking and
consuming alcohol. The photographs produced along with
writ petition reveals the position of the husband at house
and how he sleeps nude that too in the presence of the
daughter. Having no other go, wife is residing separately
along with the daughter. Learned counsel further
contended that daughter is a bright student and she is a
dancer, is attending Bharatanatyam classes. Wife requires
huge sum for the maintenance of the daughter, for her
education, for her extra curricular activities, transportation
etc., Family Court without considering the needs and
necessities of the wife to maintain the daughter, directed
husband to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month for the
maintenance of the child. Said amount is no way sufficient
and thus this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel
ultimately seeks the Court to modify the order and to

- 5 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
enhance the sum awarded towards interim maintenance in
favour of the child.
6. Opposing the submission thus made, learned
counsel for respondent/husband contended that wife is in
the habit of leading luxurious life and when his client could
not fulfil the demands of the wife, she left the matrimonial
home. Wife works at Cauvery Emporium, Bengaluru.
Husband though receives Rs.1,30,000/- per month
towards salary, he has to pay EMIs. for the Housing Loan,
Car Loan and other loans he obtained. Thus, the take
home salary is around Rs.60,000/-. Learned counsel
further submitted that wife ought not to have taken the
photographs which are filed along with this writ petition.
Learned counsel also contended that as the wife is also an
employee, she can contribute for the welfare of the
daughter from her earnings and thus the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
7. As per the pay slip which shows the earnings
and deductions for the month of May, 2024 which pertains

- 6 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
to respondent/husband, his basic pay is Rs.67,160/- and
with all allowances and special pay he earned
Rs.1,28,866/-. Coming to deductions, Rs.7,081/- was paid
towards PF contribution, Rs.200/- towards professional
tax, Rs.9,614/- towards income tax, Rs.12,164/- towards
housing loan EMI, Rs.2,500/- towards Additional Housing
Loan EMI, Rs.7,438/- towards Car Loan EMI, Rs.9,600/-
towards Festival Advance, Rs.6,695 towards PF Advance,
Rs.1,568/- towards Computer Loan, Rs.9,525/- towards
Credit Society Subscription, Rs.100/- towards Association
Membership and Rs.539/- towards PF arrears. Thus, the
total deductions was Rs.67,024/- and thereby the take-
home pay was Rs.61,842/-.
8. No doubt an employee is entitled to take loans
for purchase of property, vehicles or for other purposes.
However, the primary obligation will be to look after his/
her dependents. Having obtained so many loans,
projecting that he has to pay monthly instalments for
those loans, one cannot seek the Court to absolve his
liability of maintaining his dependents.

- 7 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
9. The version of the wife is that as Data Entry
Operator she earns Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in
the affidavit given disclosing her assets and liabilities wife
failed to mention the details of the Organisation in which
she works and her earnings. In the affidavit given
disclosing the assets and liabilities at column No.E5 she
made a clear mention that defendant i.e. the husband has
paid school fee till academic year 2024- 2025. Thus, this
Court is of the view that, in case the respondent/ husband
is directed to pay entire school fee of the child apart from
paying a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards the
maintenance of the child, that will serve the purpose.
Rs.20,000/-, which the petitioner/wife receives for the
maintenance of the child will be sufficient to her to incur
all other expenditure including her extra curricular
activities, transportation, food, clothing, etc. Therefore,
the writ petition is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The order that is rendered by the Court of III
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru

- 8 -
WP No. 5390 of 2026
on I.A.No.III in OS No.144/2025 dated 28.01.2026
is modified.
(ii) The respondent/defendant/husband is directed
to pay entire school fee of the child, apart from
paying Rs.20,000/- per month for the
maintenance of the child till disposal of the suit.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM