High CourtsSingle Bench(2026) 09 KAR CK 0886

Sri. Deepak D. vs Kum. Artha Gowda

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru Bench · Decided on 1 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Chillakur Sumalatha, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No.3370 of 2021 (GM-FC)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

11 paragraphs · 316 words

Heard Smt.Champoo Kavya.S, learned counsel for the petitioner who appears through video conference as well as Ms.Priyanka.R who appears before this Court physically and represents Smt.Mamatha.D.N, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

2.

This writ petition is filed seeking the Court to set aside the order passed by the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Mandya in Crl.Misc.No.40/2019 dated 04.08.2020, basing on an interlocutory application filed by respondent herein seeking interim maintenance.

3.

Respondent a child aged around 2 years represented by her mother filed an interlocutory application in Crl.Misc.No.40/2019 seeking interim maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. Court allowed said application and directed petitioner/father to pay the same. Aggrieved by the liability imposed, father filed this writ petition.

4.

This writ petition is devoid of merits due to following reasons:

(i)

The salary of petitioner/father as per the affidavit given by him disclosing his assets and liabilities is Rs.1,90,000/- per month.

(ii)

Though it is contended that the petitioner/father has to look after his aged parents, as per his own statement given through the affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities, father is a retired employee and he is receiving pension.

(iii)

Though a plea is taken that petitioner/father suffers with lower back issue and he is undergoing physiotherapy, as per his own version, he is attending his office and is earning around Rs.1,90,000/-per month.

(iv)

Though it is projected that mother of respondent is equally earning, that does not absolve the liability of the father to maintain the child.

(v)

The father earning around Rs.1,90,000/-per month, in the opinion of this Court, in the light of absence of any proof regarding other liabilities to be attended to, can without any hardship pay Rs.15,000/- per month for the maintenance of his own daughter.

5.

Therefore this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.