Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramesh N vs Smt. Raksha M @ Shruthi on 17 April, 2026
-1-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
R
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.15 OF 2026
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.8159 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
IN RPFC No.15/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH N
AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI. NANJUNDA
R/AT NO.1/19,
13TH CROSS,
VITTAL NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. R. RASHMI SAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.S RAGHUPRASAD.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SMT. RAKSHA M @ SHRUTHI
VIJAYALAKSHMI AGED 34 YEARS
BN W/O SRI.RAMESH N
Location: HIGH D/O MANJUNATH H
COURT OF R/AT GEDDALAHALLI CIRCLE, BESIDE
KARNATAKA SHANTHINATHA MOTOR SHOW
ROOM, TUMAKURU CITY 572 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 PASSED IN
C.MISC NO.12/2024 ON THE FILE OF IST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION
FILED UNDER ORDER 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.
-2-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
IN WP NO.8159/2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH. N
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI. NANJUNDA
R/AT NO.8/4, SRK NILAYA
HOSAKEREHALLI MAIN ROAD
BYATARAYANAPURA
MYSORE ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 026.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. R.RASHMI SAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.S.RAGHUPRASAD.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. RAKSHA M @ SHRUTHI
AGED 30 YEARS
W/O SRI RAMESH N
D/O MANJUNATH H
R/AT MARUTHI KRUPA
5TH A CROSS
MARUTHI NAGAR
TUMAKURU 572 101.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH ADDL. PRL. JUDGE
FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN MC NO. 5/2022 ON
05.01.2024 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-F TO THE WRIT
PETITION.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 16.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
-3-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
CAV ORDER
The R.P.F.C.No.15/2026 is filed seeking to set aside
the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in
Crl.Misc.12/2024 on the file of the I Additional Principal
Family Court Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru ('the
Family Court' for short).
The W.P.No.8159/2024 is filed seeking to issue writ
of certiorari and set aside the impugned order dated
05.01.2024 on I.A.No.III passed in M.C.No.5/2022 on the
file of the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court ,
Bangalore ('the Family Court' for short).
2. The brief facts of the case in both the connected
matters are that:-
The marriage between the petitioner/husband and
the respondent/wife was solemnized on 23.11.2020 at
R.S. Kalyana Mantapa, Tumakuru, in accordance with
Hindu rites and customs. It is the case of the
respondent/wife that her parents incurred expenditure of
about Rs.40,00,000/- towards the marriage and provided
cash and gold ornaments. Soon thereafter, disputes arose
-4-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
between the parties, with allegations that within one week
of the marriage, the petitioner/husband and his family
members demanded an additional sum of Rs.25,00,000/-,
sought transfer of properties standing in her name, and
insisted upon purchase of a plot in Bengaluru.
3. The respondent/wife has alleged that upon
failure to meet the said demands, she was subjected to
physical and mental cruelty, which led her to consume
tablets and become unconscious. Thereafter, she lodged a
complaint in Crime No.350/2021 before Byatarayanapura
Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 pursuant to which charge sheet has
been filed in C.C.No.5589/2022 before the XXXI ACMM,
Bengaluru. It is further her case that she has been
residing separately at her parental home in Tumakuru for
the past two years without any independent source of
income.
-5-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
4. Per contra, it is the case of the
petitioner/husband that the respondent/wife voluntarily
deserted the matrimonial home on 15.12.2021 and has
initiated false proceedings. The petitioner/husband
instituted M.C.No.5/2022 before the IV Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, seeking dissolution of
marriage under Section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955. During the pendency of the said proceedings,
the respondent/wife filed an application on 14.10.2022 in
I.A.No.III under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per
month and litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-. The
petitioner/husband filed detailed objections contending
that the respondent/wife is a B.E. graduate, engaged in
business activities including running a gas agency, earning
substantial income, and has suppressed material facts
including pendency of partition proceedings and rental
income.
-6-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
5. Subsequently, the respondent/wife instituted
Crl.Misc.No.12/2024 before the I Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, under Section 125 of the
Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of Rs.60,000/- per month,
reiterating allegations of desertion and lack of income. The
petitioner/husband opposed the same contending that the
respondent/wife is financially independent, possesses
sufficient means, and that parallel proceedings for
maintenance are being pursued without disclosure of
earlier orders.
6. The I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Tumakuru, in Crl.Misc.No.12/2024, by judgment dated
21.11.2025, awarded maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per
month to the respondent/wife. Further held that there
shall be adjustment of interim maintenance ordered and
paid by the husband in pursuance of orders in
M.C.No.5/2022.
7. The IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Bengaluru, in M.C.No.5/2022, by order dated 05.01.2024
-7-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
passed on I.A.No.III filed under Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 partly allowed the application and
directed the petitioner to pay interim maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month and litigation expenses of
Rs.20,000/-.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner/husband in RPFC 15/2026 that the finding that
the petitioner is an able-bodied man and hence liable to
pay maintenance is rendered in disregard of the material
placed on record, which discloses that the respondent is
possessed of independent sources of income, including
business and rental income amounting to Rs.4,00,000/-
per month.
9. It is further contended that the grant of
maintenance in the present Criminal Miscellaneous
proceedings, when an order of maintenance has already
been passed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in the
M.C.No.5/2022 between the same parties, results in
parallel adjudication on identical claims. Such parallel
-8-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
proceedings, in effect, vex the petitioner twice for the
same cause, which is impermissible in law. In this context,
the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rajnesh v. Neha
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 which mandates that an
applicant seeking maintenance is under an obligation to
disclose all prior and existing maintenance orders. In the
present case, despite being aware of the interim
maintenance granted in the MC petition, the respondent
has failed to disclose the same and has also suppressed
material particulars relating to her qualifications, partition
suits, and business income, thereby misleading the Court
below and affecting the maintainability of the petition.
10. It is also contended that the Court below has
committed an error in fastening liability upon the
petitioner to pay maintenance notwithstanding the
production of documents evidencing that maintenance is
already being deposited in the MC case. The failure to
consider such material evidence vitiates the impugned
order. Additionally, it is a settled position that an educated
and capable spouse cannot, without just cause, claim
-9-
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
maintenance by projecting financial incapacity when she is
in a position to maintain herself.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
in W.P.No.8159/2024 would contend that though the trial
Court has recorded that the respondent/wife is educated,
an engineering graduate and is engaged in business, it has
nevertheless proceeded to pass the impugned order
contrary to the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
thereby rendering the same unsustainable. Further, the
Court below has failed to appreciate that the respondent is
highly educated, self-sustainable and gainfully employed,
despite several documents having been produced by the
petitioner in that regard.
12. It is further contended that the claim of
Rs.50,000/- per month as maintenance and Rs.20,000/-
towards litigation expenses is stated to be exaggerated,
unreasonable and intended to harass the petitioner, and
that the award of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses
is not supported by any material or law, rendering the
- 10 -
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
impugned order liable to be quashed. The impugned order
is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India, inasmuch as both parties are equally educated and
employed, yet the trial Court, without assigning reasons,
has granted relief in favour of the respondent, thereby
conferring an unwarranted benefit. It is further urged that
the grant of such relief amounts to granting relief even
prior to proper adjudication and does not fall within the
scope of interim maintenance, thereby vitiating the
impugned order.
13. It is also contended that the respondent has
voluntarily left the matrimonial home on 15.12.2021 and
has been residing separately for about two years, during
which period she has maintained herself, thereby
disentitling her to any maintenance, either interim or final.
Further, qualified and capable wife is not entitled for
maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in the
absence of proof of incapacity and neglect.
14. Heard learned counsel appearing on either side.
- 11 -
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
15. This Court has given anxious consideration to
the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material on record. Regarding the
challenge to the interim maintenance in the proceedings in
M.C.No.5/2022, this Court is of the considered view that
the nature and scope of relief under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is distinct and limited to
providing immediate financial assistance to enable a wife
to prosecute or defend matrimonial proceedings. In the
present case, it is not in dispute that the respondent/wife
had filed I.A.No.III on 14.10.2022 seeking interim
maintenance and litigation expenses, and the IV Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, by order dated
05.01.2024, had partly allowed the same by awarding
Rs.10,000/- per month as interim maintenance and
Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses.
16. However, it is now brought on record that
subsequently, in Crl.Misc.No.12/2024, the I Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, by judgment
dated 21.11.2025, upon full-fledged consideration of
- 12 -
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
materials on record, has awarded maintenance of
Rs.10,000/- per month under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
The said determination being a final adjudication on the
entitlement and quantum of maintenance, based on
appreciation of evidence, assumes primacy over any
interim arrangement made during the pendency of
matrimonial proceedings. In that view of the matter,
continuation of a parallel direction for interim maintenance
in the matrimonial proceedings in M.C.No.5/2022 would
result in duplication of relief and overlapping financial
liability for the same period, which cannot be sustained in
law.
17. At the same time, insofar as the grant of
litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- by order dated
05.01.2024 is concerned, this Court finds that the same is
traceable to Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,
which specifically empowers the Court to award expenses
of proceedings to a spouse who lacks sufficient
independent income to effectively contest the proceedings.
Having regard to the fact that the respondent/wife is
- 13 -
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
required to defend M.C.No.5/2022 instituted by the
petitioner/husband and has also been prosecuting
connected proceedings arising out of matrimonial disputes,
the requirement of litigation expenses cannot be said to be
unwarranted. The said amount is a one-time measure
intended to facilitate access to justice and ensure fair
opportunity of representation. On the facts and
circumstances of the case, the award of Rs.20,000/-
towards litigation expenses is found to be just, reasonable
and in consonance with the statutory scheme, and does
not call for interference.
18. Therefore, while the interim maintenance
granted in M.C.No.5/2022 cannot be permitted to operate
in view of the final maintenance awarded in
Crl.Misc.No.12/2024, the direction insofar as payment of
litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- stands on a different
footing and is liable to be sustained.
19. Consequently, this Court directs that the
maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., by
- 14 -
RPFC No. 15 of 2026
C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
judgment dated 21.11.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.12/2024, shall
be the governing and subsisting obligation of the
petitioner/husband. The IV Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru, while adjudicating
M.C.No.5/2022 finally, shall take into consideration the
said maintenance and ensure appropriate adjustment
while determining any permanent alimony or final
maintenance, so as to avoid duplication.
20. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) R.P.F.C.No.15/2026 filed by the petitioner/husband stands dismissed.
(ii) The judgment dated 21.11.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.12/2024 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, awarding maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent/wife is hereby affirmed.
- 15 -
RPFC No. 15 of 2026C/W WP No. 8159 of 2024
(iii) W.P.No.8159/2024 is partly allowed.
(iv) The order dated 05.01.2024 passed on I.A.No.III in M.C.No.5/2022 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to grant of interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- per month is hereby set aside.
(v) The direction to pay litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- to the respondent/wife, as ordered in I.A.No.III dated 05.01.2024, is hereby upheld.
(vi) The maintenance awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. shall be the operative maintenance payable by the petitioner/husband, subject to adjustment, if any, in the final adjudication of M.C.No.5/2022.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv