Karnataka High Court
Dipak Thakur vs Sunita Thakur on 17 April, 2026
-1-
WP No. 37271 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.37271 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
DIPAK THAKUR
(AGE 57 YEARS)
152, 2ND FLOOR, DEFENCE ENCLAVE,
GEDLAHALLI,
BANGALORE 560 077.,
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.DEEPAK THAKUR, PARTY-IN-PERSON/PETITIONER)
AND:
SUNITA THAKUR
(53 YEARS),
152, 1ST FLOOR,
Digitally signed
by DEFENCE ENCLAVE,
VIJAYALAKSHMI GEDLAHALLI,
BN BANGALORE 560 077.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RASHEED KHAN.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO WHEREFORE, IN THE
NOW CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES OF NO JOB, NO INCOME
PRAYING FOR MUTATIS MUTANDIS PARTIAL RELIEF BY
MODIFYING THE IA 14 ORDER DATED 11 NOVEMBER 2025 OF
THE HON'BLE IV ADDL PRI JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
BANGALORE, TO AT LEAST REDUCE THE MONTHLY INTERIM
MAINTENANCE FROM RS 20,000 CASH TO ABOUT RS 7000,
AND DIRECTING HER TO SHIFT TO A 2 ROOM RESIDENCE FOR
HER SINGLE SELF, COSTING AROUND RS 10,000 INSTEAD OF
AN UNNECESSARY HUGE 5 ROOMS KITCHEN 2,400 SQ FEET
HOUSE COSTING RS 45,000.AND NUDGE THE RESPONDENT TO
ACCEPT EMPLOYMENT TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN HERSELF SO AS
-2-
WP No. 37271 of 2025
NOT TO WASTE HER HIGH POST-GRADUATE EDUCATION TO
REMAIN IDLE.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 18.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner - husband
being aggrieved by the order on I.A.No.14 dated
11.11.2025 passed in M.C.No.5860/2021 by the IV
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru,
(hereinafter referred to as 'Family Court') whereby, the
Family Court has rejected the application filed by the
petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner and the respondent are legally wedded
wife and husband. Their marriage was solemnized on
18.05.2003. The petitioner - husband has filed
M.C.No.5860/2021 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage making
allegations against the respondent. During the pendency
-3-
WP No. 37271 of 2025
of the proceedings, respondent filed I.A.No.13 under
Section 151 of CPC to stay the proceedings for non
payment of arrears of maintenance of Rs.2,95,000/- and
I.A.No.15 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act to
implement the order of this Court dated 22.08.2025. The
petitioner (party-in-person) filed I.A.No.14 under Section
151 of CPC read with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act
to cancel or proportionately reduce the interim
maintenance. The petitioner (party-in-person) has
objected I.A.Nos.13 & 15 by filing objections.
3. By order dated 11.11.2025, the Family Court has
rejected all the three applications filed by petitioner and
the respondent. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the
application, the petitioner (party-in-person) has filed the
present writ petition seeking reduction of the monthly
interim maintenance as ordered by the Family Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the Family Court has erred in rejecting the application -
I.A.No.14 filed by the petitioner. He further contends that
-4-
WP No. 37271 of 2025
the respondent has been dragging him to multiple Courts
and then adjourning all the dates in order to block him
from attending his work. He submits that his employment
on 30.09.2025 got terminated. The expenses of his son
increased from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- per month
due to admission in engineering college. In addition to
that, he is paying Rs.45,000/- per month towards the cost
of 3 BHK, which is occupied by the respondent. Hence,
petitioner filed I.A.No.14, which is rejected by the Family
Court. Therefore, he prays for allowing the petition and
reduce monthly interim maintenance.
5. Per contra, respondent has objection I.A.No.14
contending that petitioner made attempts to succeed in
reducing the maintenance amount from Rs.30,000/- to
Rs.20,000/- per month. The petitioner has not produced
any relevant documents pertaining to the domestic
enquiry and reasons for removal of him from the assigned
job. The petitioner has nowhere stated the reasons for his
removal from the job and in order to substantiate the fact
-5-
WP No. 37271 of 2025
of not working, he has not produced any documentary
evidence. Hence, prays for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the material on record.
7. The Family Court has recorded the finding at
paragraph Nos.15 to 18 as under:-
"15. Apart from that, the petitioner has filed
IA.No.14 to cancel or proportionately reduce the interim
maintenance as he got terminated from his employment
due to the respondent has been dragging him to multiple
courts and then adjourning all dates in each court to block
him from attending to his work. The respondent has
objected the IA.No.14 and stated that the petitioner has
not produced any relevant document/ evidence in order to
substantiate the fact of termination of service and reasons
for removal from the assigned job.
16. On careful perusal of the records, it appears
that he has stated that he got terminated from his job
and thereby, he prayed to cancel or proportionately
reduce the interim maintenance as the respondent has
been dragging him to multiple courts and then adjourning
all the dates in each court blocking him from attending to
his work. In this regard the petitioner has produced the
online copy of E-mail received by him from Deloitte
Shared Services India LLP dated 30.09.2025, wherein the
firm has decided to terminate his employment with effect
from 01.10.2025. But the reason for termination is not
assigned.
17. At this juncture, it is relevant to rely upon the
decision reported in 2021 (2) SCC 324, Rajneshv/s Neha
and another, wherein it is clearly held as follows:
"The obligation of the husband to provide
maintenance stands on a higher pedestal than the wife.
"An able bodied husband must be presume to be capable
-6-
WP No. 37271 of 2025
of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and
children and cannot contend that he is not in a position to
earn sufficiently to maintain the family. onus is on the
husband to establish with necessary material that there
are sufficient grounds to show that he is unable to
maintain the family and discharge his legal obligations for
reasons beyond his control. If the husband does not
disclose the exact amount of his income, an adverse
inference may be drawn by the court." The
"Remedy of maintenance is a measure of social
justice as envisaged under the Constitution to prevent
wives and children from falling into destitution and
vagrancy."
"The plea of the husband that he does not posses
any source of income ipso facto not absolve him of his
moral duty to maintain his wife, if he is able-bodied and
has educational qualification".
18. Keeping in mind the above principles and
applying the same to this case, it can be held that the
petitioner being a well qualified person and having every
potential to get another job, cannot be allowed to escape
from his responsibility to maintain his family It is the on
the ground of termination of service. moral duty of the
petitioner to maintain his wife as he is able-bodied
educational person and has qualification and he cannot be
allowed to escape from maintaining his wife and children.
The obligation of the husband to provide maintenance
stands on a higher pedestal than the wife. Hence, I am of
the opinion that the IA.No.14 filed by the petitioner under
Section 151 of CPC read with Section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act to cancel or to proportionately reduce the
interim maintenance deserves to be rejected. Accordingly,
I answered point No.2 in the Negative."
8. The Family Court has also observed at paragraph
No.21 as under:-
"21. It is relevant to note here that, in this case,
both parties are mainly concentrating on interim
maintenance and not concentrating of the main petition.
Frequent filing of interlocutory applications related to
interim maintenance is causing delay in disposal of the
-7-
WP No. 37271 of 2025
main petition. This is the reason for non disposal of the
main petition within the prescribed period."
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is
of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated
11.11.2025 passed by the IV Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Bengaluru rejecting I.A.No.14 under Section
151 of CPC read with Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 does not suffer from any illegality, perversity
warranting interference.
10. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:-
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The order on I.A.No.14 dated 11.11.2025 passed in M.C.No.5860/2021 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is hereby confirmed.
No order as to costs.
SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MH/-