Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2951
WP No. 20722 of 2022
C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 20 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 20722 OF 2022 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 12905 OF 2022 (GM-FC)
IN WP No. 20722/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAVANYA
W/O M.G. LOKESH
C/O M PARAMESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KENKERE MAJURE
BARADELEPALYA, HULIYARU HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
…PETITIONER
Digitally signed
by SOWMYA
DODDAMARAIAH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
M .G. LOKESH
S/O K.S. GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
JUDICIAL OFFICER
WORKING AS SENIOR CIVIL AND
JMFC VIRAJAPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT - 577 221.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2951
WP No. 20722 of 2022
C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASEQUASH THAT PART
OF THE ORDER DTD 10.06.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI IN
M.C.NO.8/2021 IN GRANTING INTERIM MAINTENANCE OF
ONLY RS.25,000/- PER MONTH IS CONCERNED, CERTIFIED
COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ALLOW
THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 24 OF THE
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT IN M.C.NO.8/221 CERTIFIED COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 12905/2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.G. LOKESH
S/O SRI K S GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O DODDAMALIGERE VILLAGE,
MAYASANDRA HOBLI,
TURUVEKERE TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 577 221
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NANDISH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. P LAVANYA
W/O SRI. M.G. LOKESH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/O KENKERE MAJARE,
BARADALEPALYA VILLAGE, HULIYUR HOBLI,
C.N. HALLI (TALUK)
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V, ADVOCATE)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 10.06.2022 PASSED BY THE
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2951
WP No. 20722 of 2022
C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022
HC-KAR
COURT OF SENIOR JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKANAYANAKAHALLI IN MC NO.8/2021 VIDE ANNX-A
AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri. Gangadharappa A.V., learned counsel for the
petitioner in Writ Petition No.20722/2022 who is representing
the respondent in the connected Writ Petition. Also heard Sri.
Nandish Gowda G.P., learned counsel for respondent in Writ
Petition No.20722/2022 who is appearing for the petitioner in
the connected Writ Petition i.e., Writ Petition No.12905/2022.
2. These two writ petitions are filed being aggrieved by
the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by the Court of Senior Civil
Judge, Chikkanayakanahalli in an application filed under Section
24 of the Hindu Marriage Act in M.C No.8/2021.
3. The status of the parties is not in dispute. Therefore for
convenience of discussion, the parties to both the writ petitions
will hereinafter be referred to as the husband and wife.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2951
WP No. 20722 of 2022
C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022
HC-KAR
4. Husband filed a petition seeking the Court to grant a
decree of divorce. In the said petition i.e., in M.C 8/2021, wife
filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
seeking interim maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month. The
Court through the impugned order directed the husband to pay
a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance.
Aggrieved by the order thus passed, these two writ petitions
came to be filed. While the husband contends that he is not
liable to pay any amount towards such interim maintenance,
the version of the wife is that the amount granted towards
interim maintenance is grossly low.
5. Learned counsel who represents the husband submits
that the marriage between the parties is an arranged marriage
and the couple stayed happily only for about 4 months. Due to
the attitude of the wife, they could not live longer and
ultimately the wife left the matrimonial home. Learned counsel
submits that as the wife is totally at fault and due to her
attitude, husband is suffering, he is not liable to pay anything
to the wife towards maintenance.
Per contra
6. , learned counsel who represents the wife
submits that due to the attitude of the husband, wife left the
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2951
WP No. 20722 of 2022
C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022
HC-KAR
matrimonial home and as she has no source of earning, she has
to be maintained by her husband.
7. In reply to the said submission, learned counsel who
represents the husband contends that wife is a science
graduate and she is gainfully employed. Learned counsel also
states that her father has got huge property and she inherited
the property from her father.
8. Pleadings of both parties reveals allegations and
counter allegations. When the wife contends that her husband
has no love and affection towards her and he tortured her and
assaulted her, husband on the other hand contends that his
wife and his father asked for judicial favourism in pending cases
which he denied and therefore his wife started torturing him.
9. Perceiving the fact that the husband is a judicial officer
serving in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge and he earns more
than a lakh per month, the trial Court directed him to pay
interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month. Admittedly,
both parties failed to produce any evidence in respect of their
financial constraints and liabilities. Basing on status of parties
and as no material what so ever was produced to show that the
wife has got her own source of earnings Court directed the
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2951
WP No. 20722 of 2022
C/W WP No. 12905 of 2022
HC-KAR
husband to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards
interim maintenance. A sum of Rs.25,000/- towards interim
maintenance in the opinion of this Court is justifiable. The said
sum can neither be reduced as sought for by learned counsel
who represents the husband nor be enhanced as sought for by
learned counsel who represents the wife.
10. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with
the decision taken by the trial Court through the impugned
order. Hence, this Court ultimately holds that both the writ
petitions lack merits.
Resultantly, both the Writ Petitions stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34