Sri.D.Nohan Kantha, v. Smt.Rashmi.H.,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 23501 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. D. NOHAN KANTHA, S/O DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.257, KURUBARABEEDI, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G.V. NARASIMHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT. RASHMI H, W/O D. NOHAN KANTHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶2KUMARI. AARON D/O D. NOHAN KANTHAA, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER, SMT.H.RASHMI by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e NC:(2026:KHC:11549 WP(No.(23501(of(2025 R/AT,NO.19,,NEXT,TO,SAPTHAGIRI,HOSPITAL,,, M.M.,LAY,OUT,,CHIKKASANDRA,,, CHIKKABANAVARA,,BANGALORE,NORTH,, BANGALORE,-560,090., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,VIKHYATH,,ADVOCATE,FOR, ,,,,,,SRI.,SURENDRA,Y.S,,ADVOCATE), , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, SET, ASIDE, THE, ORDER,DATED,29.11.2024,IN,CRL.,MISC,NO.,838/2022,SAME, IS, PENDING, BEFORE, HONORABLE, CHIEF, JUDICIAL, MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, RURAL, DISTRICT,, BANGALORE, AT, ANNEXRUE-F,AND,RESPECTFULLY,IN,THIS,WP,AND,ETC., , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,DR.,JUSTICE,CHILLAKUR,SUMALATHA,

ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. G.V.Narasimha Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner who appears before this Court physically. Also heard Sri. Vikhyath who appears through video conference and represents Sri. Surendra Y.S., learned counsel on record for the respondents.

¶2Seeking the Court to set aside the order that is rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural in the interlocutory application in Crl.Misc.No.838/2022 dated 29.11.2024, this writ petition is filed.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is an employee and has got sufficient earnings. Petitioner is working as driver in a private organization and his net salary is Rs.17,220/-only. Trial Court directed the petitioner to pay respondent No.2, a sum of Rs.15,000/-

per month towards interim maintenance. Petitioner cannot pay such huge sum. Without taking into consideration of financial status of the petitioner, such huge amount was ordered to be paid and therefore, this writ petition is filed.

¶4On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents states that petitioner failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities before the trial Court. Learned counsel also contends that justifiable sum is awarded towards interim maintenance and thus the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶5There is no denial of the fact that petitioner failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities. The Court at paragraph 12 of the impugned order, made a mention that despite of clear direction issued, petitioner herein failed to furnish his bank statements, tax returns, etc. However, taking into consideration the contents of pay slip of the month of February - 2025 which is produced by the petitioner before this Court whose genuineness is not

in serious dispute and which discloses that after standard deductions, petitioner receives Rs.17,220/- only, this Court is of the view that petitioner can be directed to pay respondent No.2, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance. Therefore, writ petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER

i) The order that is rendered by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural in the interlocutory application in Crl.Misc.No.838/ 2022 dated 29.11.2024 is modified.

ii) Petitioner is directed to pay respondent No.1, a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards interim maintenance of respondent No.2 from the date of petition. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25