Sri. Prasanna Kumar Kondajji Matada v. Smt. Madurani Prasanna Kumar

ORDER DATED

25.04.2026 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN M.C.NO.3123/2023 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY REDUCE THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE PAYABLE TO THE RESPONDENT-WIFE TO RS.10,000/- (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND ONLY) PER MONTH.

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 Smt.Prathyusha M Shanubog learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Chakravathy who represents Sri.Y.S.Hanumantha Reddy learned counsel on record for the respondent.

¶2Seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and to quash or modify the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bengaluru on IA No.III in M.C.No.3123/2023 dated 25.04.2026, this writ petition came to be filed.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the husband of respondent. Petitioner/ husband filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Respondent/wife raised counterclaim seeking decree of divorce. During the pendency of proceedings, respondent/wife filed I.A.No.III seeking interim maintenance. Family Court, without considering the financial status of the petitioner/husband and the fact that he lost his job, directed petitioner/husband to pay respondent/wife a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interim maintenance. Learned counsel submits that petitioner paid Rs.4,00,000/- voluntarily till now and petitioner is willing to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. Learned counsel states that as the petitioner is jobless, he is not in a position to pay huge sum of Rs.50,000/- towards maintenance. That apart,

respondent/wife is in possession of property worth crores of rupees. Learned counsel thereby seeks to modify the impugned order.

¶4Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the respondent states that lawful wedlock resulted in birth of a male child and the said child is aged around years. doubt, petitioner/husband paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. However, said amount was paid a year back that too to meet the educational expenses of the child. Since one year the petitioner has not paid any amount either for the maintenance of his wife i.e., the respondent herein or the child. Learned counsel also submits that wife gave complaint to police basing on which a case was registered against the petitioner that he has committed an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. Immediately, petitioner transferred the property that stands in his name to his sister. That itself goes to show that petitioner is

taking all steps to deprive the legitimate rights of respondent/wife and his son. Learned counsel thereby seeks to dismiss the petition.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the contents of service certificate. The contents of the said certificate reveal that it was issued on 29.04.2026 mentioning that the petitioner was employed by Tata Consultancy Services as full time employee and he left the job on 25.07.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner left the job due to family issues.

¶6It is not in dispute that the child born out of lawful wedlock who is aged around 13 years is a school going child. Thus, child requires sufficient nourishment and education. Also respondent who is having the custody of the child is required to attend all the necessities of the child including transportation, purchase of books, medical attendance as and when required and extra-curricular

activities. It is not the version of petitioner that his services were terminated by his employer. As per his own version, he voluntarily left the job. It is the bounden duty of a father to maintain the child. Therefore on the ground that he left the job due to family issues, petitioner cannot escape from the liability to maintain his child. That apart, no material whatsoever is produced before the Court to show that respondent/wife has got her own source of earnings and that she is in possession of such huge property as contented by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court.

¶7Family Court taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, directed petitioner to pay respondent a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interim maintenance inclusive of the amount required for maintenance of the child and educational expenditure. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds whatsoever either to set aside the impugned

order or to modify the same. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that this writ petition lacks merits. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 17297 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR KONDAJJI MATADA S/O BOODAIAH KONDAJJI MATADA, AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 29/A/110 SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA 4TH MAIN, 10TH CROSS, SRINIVASANAGARA, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU- 560085. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRATHYUSHA M. SHANUBOG, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MADURANI PRASANNA KUMAR, W/O. PRASANNA KUMAR K. M. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO 430/2, 6TH MAIN ROAD, 'A' BLOCK SUBRAMANYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 055 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHAKRAVARTHY D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y.S. HANUMANTHA REDDY, ADVOCATE) by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING/MODIFYING THE