Karnataka High Court
Manish Kumar vs Shivangi Singh on 8 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:24695
WP No. 18373 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 18373 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MANISH KUMAR
S/O. SHRI SATISH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT B 902,
F ZONE, BOLLINELI SILAS APARTMENT,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KADUGODI PLANTATION,
BENGALURU - 560 067
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ADITYA D., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHIVANGI SINGH
D/O SHRI B.S. SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1042, FOURTH FLOOR,
Digitally signed SOBHA MOONSTONE APARTMENT,
by MEGHA DASARAHALLI,
MOHAN BENGALURU - 560 024
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED: 05.03.2025 IN MC NO. 8026/2023 IN THE COURT OF THE I
ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:24695
WP No. 18373 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.II in M.C.No.8026/2023 dated 05.03.2025 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.
2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.
3. M.C.No.8026/2023 is filed by the wife seeking divorce. In that, she had filed I.A.No.II under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking direction to the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,73,000/- per month towards the maintenance for herself and her minor son and one time litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.
4. The trial Court by way of order impugned had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of the minor son from the date of application till disposal of the petition. As far as the wife is concerned, the trial Court had not granted any maintenance and held that she is entitled for one time litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.20,000/-. While passing the said order, the trial Court had -3- NC: 2025:KHC:24695 WP No. 18373 of 2025 HC-KAR observed that the income of the wife is an amount of Rs.1,60,533/- per month and the income of the husband is an amount of Rs.1,21,228/-. The trial Court had considered the monthly expenses of minor child towards school fee, general expenses, school uniform, transportation, recreation, extra curricular activities, books etc. which is approximately Rs.50,000/- as shown by the wife and the Court considering all these expenses had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards maintenance to the child and an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when the wife is earning an amount of Rs.1,60,533/- and the husband is earning an amount of Rs.1,21,228/-, the trial Court ought not to have directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the maintenance of the child. Considering the disparity between the salaries of both the parties, the Court ought not to have granted one time litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Further, it is submitted that when the wife had instituted the proceedings, when she is financially independent and earning an amount of Rs.1,60,533/-, the Court ought not to have granted an amount -4- NC: 2025:KHC:24695 WP No. 18373 of 2025 HC-KAR of Rs.20,000/- towards the litigation expenses. Learned counsel further submits that the wife on one hand is seeking maintenance and on the other hand is not complying with the order of visitation that is passed by the Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that the Court had rightly granted the maintenance. Further, it is the responsibility of the husband to take care of the needs of the child. Just because the wife is also earning, the husband cannot shy away from the responsibility of maintaining the son. It is submitted that the Court had passed an order whereby the husband is restrained from sending e- mails except with regard to the visitation. He has also undertaken before the Court that he would not be sending any e-mails, other than pertaining to the visitation. But in spite of the same, the husband is continuously sending the mails to the wife and the learned counsel has placed before the Court the e-mail communication which was sent to the wife on 02.07.2025 late night i.e., the date of hearing before this Court. He submits that when there is an order by the Court and when there is an undertaking, still sending these kinds of -5- NC: 2025:KHC:24695 WP No. 18373 of 2025 HC-KAR messages shows the conduct of the husband and how he is violating the orders of the Court.
7. In response to that, learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that he had discussed the same with his client and he has stated that he will never send e-mails to the wife other than pertaining to the visitation and he will abide by the undertaking that is given before the Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The undisputed facts are that the wife's income is an amount of Rs.1,60,533/- and the husband's income is an amount of Rs.1,21,228/- as per the order passed by the trial Court. The Court considering the income as put forth by the wife had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the maintenance of the child. This Court is not able to appreciate the contention of the husband that as the wife is earning more income, the Court ought not to have granted Rs.25,000/- towards maintenance of the child. When the wife is taking complete care of the child, the Court looking at the income of the wife had granted only an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards maintenance of the child. Just because the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:24695 WP No. 18373 of 2025 HC-KAR wife is earning, the husband cannot submit that he will not pay the maintenance to the child or he will pay meager amount.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court had rightly granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance and this Court finds no reason to interfere. Then coming to the litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.20,000/-, when the wife is earning and she had initiated M.C.No.8026/2023 seeking divorce, the Court ought not to have granted the litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent/wife submits that already the husband has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-. The said amount shall be adjusted in the maintenance that is to be paid to the wife. Then coming to the submission with regard to the visitation and the e-mails are concerned, the husband shall not send any communication to the wife. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that in spite of an undertaking given before the Court, the husband is still sending e-mails to the wife, the Family Court shall take appropriate action against the husband. The wife shall also abide by the order passed by the Court and shall provide the visitation to the husband. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following order:
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:24695 WP No. 18373 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER i. This Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the order as far as granting of maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the minor son is concerned.
ii. As far as the litigation expenses are concerned, the wife is not entitled for the same. As the petitioner/husband has already paid the litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.20,000/- as ordered by the trial Court, the same shall be adjusted in the maintenance that is to be paid to the wife. iii. The husband shall not send any communication to the wife except with regard to visitation. If it is brought to the notice of the Court that the husband is still sending e-mails to the wife, the Family Court shall take appropriate action against the husband.
iv. The wife shall also abide by the order passed by the Court and shall provide the visitation to the husband.-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:24695 WP No. 18373 of 2025 HC-KAR v. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. vi. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26