Wife’s Hotel Dispute: Karnataka HC Upholds Bar On Husband’s Property Dealings, Says Separate Injunction Still Lets Him Run Business

The respondent-wife filed O.S. No. 18/2025 seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that a registered General Power of Attorney (GPA) executed in favour of her husband was invalid and an injunction concerning the management and dealings with her hotel property.

The trial court refused her application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; the appellate court allowed her appeal and restrained the husband from changing the property’s nature, dealing with or encumbering it, creating third-party interests, and operating the business bank account on the basis of the GPA.

The husband challenged that order under Article 226, contending that it conflicted with an interim injunction in O.S. No. 62/2025, which restrained the wife from interfering with his administration of the hotel business.

The application for temporary injunction was governed by Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and the appeal from the trial court’s order was brought under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC.

The Court applied the principle that interim measures should preserve the subject matter of a dispute pending final adjudication.

An order permitting the continuation of business operations does not, without more, authorize the creation of third-party rights or encumbrances over the disputed property.

The Court considered its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 in reviewing the appellate court’s order.

The Court distinguished the two interim orders by their terms and purposes.

The order in O.S. No. 62/2025 protected the husband’s administration and operation of the hotel business; it did not authorize him to alienate, encumber, alter the nature of, or create third-party interests in the property.

The appellate court’s restrictions were directed to preserving the disputed property and regulating dealings with it pending adjudication, and therefore did not negate the husband’s ability to continue business operations under the separate order.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the appellate court’s order.

The writ petition was dismissed, leaving the appellate court’s temporary injunction in force.