Karnataka High Court
Smt Rashmi Padmanabha Navada vs Sri Ganesh Subramanya Arikere on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3725
WP No. 23020 of 2024
C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.23020 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.18280 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
IN WP NO.23020/2024
BETWEEN:
SMT. RASHMI PADMANABHA NAVADA
D/O. PADMANABHA KODI NAVADA
W/O. GANESH SUBRAMANYA ARIKERE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT #17, 6TH MAIN
9TH CROSS, R. K. LAYOUT
Digitally signed 1ST STAGE, PADMANABHANAGAR
by SOWMYA
DODDAMARAIAH
BENGALURU-560 070
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. MEGHA SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI SHARATH GOWDA G. B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI GANESH SUBRAMANYA ARIKERE
S/O. ACHUTTA RAO ARIKERE
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3725
WP No. 23020 of 2024
C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT #010
2ND BLOCK, OM SRI RESIDENCY
OPP. UNION BANK, UTTARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 061
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI P. P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR;
SMT. MONISHA N. S., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
ORDER DATED 20.02.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.IV IN
M.C.NO.4801/2022 ON THE FILE VI ADDL.PRL.JUDGE FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO PAY A
SUM OF RS.60,000/- PER MONTH FORM THE DATE OF
I.A.NO.IV PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE M.C.NO.4801/2022.
IN WP NO.18280/2024
BETWEEN:
MR. GANESH SUBRAMANYA ARIKERE
S/O. ACHUTTA RAO ARIKERE
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT #010
2ND BLOCK, OM SRI RESIDENCY
OPP. UNION BANK, UTTARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 061
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI P. P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR;
SMT. MONISHA N. S., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3725
WP No. 23020 of 2024
C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
SMT. RASHMI PADMANABHA NAVADA
D/O. PADMANABHA KODI NAVADA
W/O. GANESH SUBRAMANYA ARIKERE
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT #17, 6TH MAIN
9TH CROSS, R. K. LAYOUT
1ST STAGE, PADMANABHANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 070
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. MEGHA SUNIL, ADVOCATE FOR;
SRI SHARATH GOWDA G. B., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 20.02.2024 IN M.S.NO.4801/2022 ON THE FILE
OF VI ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU
DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY MONTHLY INTERIM
MAINTENANCE OF RS.30,000/- FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF
I.A.NO.IV I.E FROM 20.04.2023 TOWARDS THE MAINTENANCE
OF THE RESPONDENT AND DAUGHTERS VIDE ANNX-D.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:3725
WP No. 23020 of 2024
C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.P.P.Hegde, learned Senior Counsel who represents the petitioner in W.P.No.18280/2024 who is arrayed as respondent in W.P.No.23020/2024. Also heard Ms.Megha Sunil who represents Sri.Sharath Gowda.G.B, learned counsel on record for the respondent in W.P.No.18280/2024 who is appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.23020/2024.
2. These two writ petitions are the outcome of the order rendered by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru on IA No.IV in MC No.4801/2022 dated 20.02.2024.
3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus for the sake of convenience of discussion, the parties to the writ petitions will hereinafter be referred to as the husband and wife.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:3725 WP No. 23020 of 2024 C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024 HC-KAR
4. Wife filed a petition seeking the Court to grant a decree of divorce. She also moved an interlocutory application i.e., IA No.IV seeking the Court to direct her husband to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- per month towards maintenance pendente lite. It is not in dispute that the couple gave birth to twin female children named Trayi Navada and Trisha Navada. Equally it is not in dispute that as on the date of the impugned order, they are studying first standard.
5. The version of the wife is that she could not tolerate the cruelty and behaviour of her husband and therefore, she started residing separately. Her version is also that she was working prior to the birth of children and thereafter she stopped working. She claimed Rs.60,000/- per month towards maintenance to maintain herself, her two children and also to bear their educational expenses. Her contention is that her husband is working in a reputed company as Vice President and earns more than Rs.40,00,000/- per annum.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:3725 WP No. 23020 of 2024 C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024 HC-KAR
6. The version of the husband on the other hand is that she took good care of his wife all the time. But his wife who went to her parents house for delivery did not return back. His contention is also that he requested his wife to give access to see his daughters and he also assured to pay the educational and medical expenses of those children but the wife refused.
7. Arguing the matter, defending the husband, learned Senior Counsel submits that the attitude of the wife resulted in separation and the husband thereafter lost his job and is now depending on his parents and thus he has no capacity whatsoever to maintain either his wife or his children. Learned counsel states that he filed the statement of assets and liabilities of the husband which discloses that he has no earnings and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned counsel who represents the wife submits that the husband maintains 4 saving bank -7- NC: 2026:KHC:3725 WP No. 23020 of 2024 C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024 HC-KAR accounts in total but he disclosed only 2 accounts in his statement of assets and liabilities filed before this Court. Learned counsel also states that from the account which he has not disclosed in his statement of assets and liabilities, he transferred multiple amounts towards payment of fee to his counsel. Learned counsel also states that the husband maintains shares and earns dividends too and therefore, his contention that he is unable to maintain his wife and children is far from truth. Learned counsel submits that the amount awarded as maintenance is too meager and therefore, it is liable to be enhanced.
9. Admittedly, the wife filed her statement of assets and liabilities before the trial Court. But the husband did not do so. No averment in the pleadings of the husband is brought to the notice of this Court which states that he lost his job and thereby he is unable to maintain either himself or his wife and children. That apart, in the income tax returns submitted by the husband before this Court for the assessment year 2025-2026, -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3725 WP No. 23020 of 2024 C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024 HC-KAR there is a clear mention that the husband is involved in speculative trading and that the turnover from intraday trading is Rs.7,41,109/-. For the assessment year 2024-2025, husband has shown his net salary as Rs.38,27,028/-. In the statement of assets and liabilities, husband has shown that his approximate monthly expenditure is Rs.88,000/-. He has also shown that his investment in stocks and mutual funds is around Rs.35 lakhs. In the income tax returns filed for the assessment year 2023-2024, he has shown that he holds 4 accounts, 1 at HDFC Bank and 3 in ICICI Bank. The version of the husband is that wife is also an employee and therefore, she can maintain herself. No material whatsoever is produced in proof of the employment of his wife and her earnings. Even if his contention is taken to be true, as per his own version for him he spends a sum of Rs.88,000/- per month. Therefore, for his two children, to come up in life as per the status of their father, to meet their educational expenses, transportation, food and -9- NC: 2026:KHC:3725 WP No. 23020 of 2024 C/W WP No. 18280 of 2024 HC-KAR nourishment, a sum of Rs.30,000/- in total is required i.e., Rs.15,000/- each. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Family Court did not err in directing the husband to pay his wife and children a sum of Rs.30,000/- in total for maintenance. Equally this Court is of the view that in the light of absence of any authentic proof with regard to the earnings of the husband, the sum granted can neither be enhanced. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that both the writ petitions lack merits.
Resultantly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1