Karnataka HC Quashes Family Court Ruling That Relied on Short Cohabitation

A bench of Hon'ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao heard Writ Petition No. 11177 of 2025 challenging the order dated 27.02.2025 of the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, which rejected the petitioner’s application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking maintenance pendente lite of Rs.25,000 per month and Rs.30,000 towards litigation expenses.

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 and remitted I.A. No. III in M.C. No. 6741/2022 to the Family Court for fresh consideration. The Court held that the Family Court had placed undue emphasis on the short duration of cohabitation and failed to consider relevant factors such as the parties’ incomes, financial capacities and the requirement of the spouse seeking maintenance. 

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, it is to be noted that the Family Court has rejected the application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act primarily on the ground that the parties had lived together only for a short period. The duration of cohabitation, by itself, is not a determinative factor when considering an application under Section 24 of the Act. The Family Court is required to consider the income of the parties, their respective financial capacities, and the requirement of the spouse seeking maintenance. In the case on hand, the impugned order does not reflect due consideration of these relevant factors. When an order is founded on an irrelevant consideration and without proper examination of relevant aspects, the same would warrant interference even in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.” The High Court directed the Family Court to decide the application afresh in accordance with law and the guidance in Rajnesh v. Neha, observing that: “The view that maintenance ought to be granted from the date when the application was made, is based on the rationale that the primary object of maintenance laws is to protect a deserted wife and dependent children from destitution and vagrancy.”

Background
The petitioner and the respondent were married on 13.03.2022. The petitioner lived in the matrimonial home in Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, in a joint family until August 2022. She conceived during the subsistence of marriage but, during the 19th week, an ultrasound on 22.09.2022 revealed fetal anomalies; on medical advice she underwent medical termination of pregnancy at K.C. General Hospital on 05.10.2022 and was discharged on 07.10.2022. The petitioner alleged ill‑treatment and neglect, including indifference by the respondent during her hospitalization, and returned to her parental home for recovery; the respondent contested those allegations and maintained that the petitioner left the matrimonial home without sufficient cause and had insisted on a separate residence.

The petitioner filed M.C. No. 6741/2022 for restitution of conjugal rights and moved I.A. No. III under Section 24 HMA for interim maintenance and litigation expenses. Both parties filed affidavits of disclosure: the petitioner was unemployed and had no independent source of income, while the respondent stated that he worked as an Analyst–CAT Modelling at XL India Business Services Pvt. Ltd. and earned Rs.52,268 per month. The Family Court dismissed I.A. No. III on 27.02.2025, principally because cohabitation had been of short duration.

The High Court found that the Family Court’s reasoning centered unduly on the duration of cohabitation and did not record due consideration of statutory parameters governing interim maintenance, including financial capacity and disclosure affidavits. Relying on the Supreme Court’s directions in Rajnesh v. Neha, the High Court held that those parameters required fresh adjudication and that interlocutory factual disputes could not be conclusively resolved at this stage. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration of I.A. No. III after affording both parties an opportunity to place material in support of their contentions. All contentions were kept open and the Family Court was directed to pass appropriate orders expeditiously; no interim maintenance direction was issued by the High Court itself.

Case Details:
Case No.: WP No. 11177 of 2025
Case Title: Smt Hemavathi M v. Sri Ravi Kumar P
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri. Nehru P., Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Smt. Rama Devi L., Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 84