Mrs Reena Jaiswal vs Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Aug 18, 2025

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1719987

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1719987
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Lalitha Kanneganti
Decided On: Aug 18, 2025
Case Number: WP/16014/2025

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mrs Reena Jaiswal

Respondent

Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal

Excerpt

.....to the extent that the matter stands adjourned to 25.06.2025 (annexure-a); ii. allow i.a.no.4 filed by the petitioner (annexure-c); iii. alternatively, direct the learned trial court to dispose of i.a.no.4 in terms of the statutory period under section 24 of the hindu marriage act; iv. grant such other reliefs as this hon’ble court may be deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”2. it is the case that the mc is of the year 2023 and inthe year 2024, i.a.no.4 is filed seeking maintenance, so far the -3- said i.a. is not disposed of by the family court. then this court had called for a report from the concerned court. the report reveals that the husband had filed i.a.no.3 before the family court to reject the plaint on the ground that the court has no territorial jurisdiction, as the same was pending consideration and the same was disposed of on 11.03.2025. till such time, as that goes to the root of the matter, they could not pass anyorder on the interim maintenance. when the court is ready totake up the matter, a memo is filed before the family court stating that the matter is pending before the high court as such the same was not considered and the orders are yet to be passed.3. whenever an i.a. is filed seeking interimmaintenance, the court has to consider and pass orders as expeditiously as possible. if another application is filed for rejection of plaint that could be considered in the due course and for two years the applications of this nature, which is for the immediate requirement of the parties cannot be kept pending. in that view of the matter, this court deems it appropriate to pass the following: -4-orderi. accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the family court to decide the i.a. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ii. this court is not issuing the notice to the respondent as no adverse orders are passed and disposed of the petition is in the.....

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 16014 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MRS. REENA JAISWAL, D/O. LATE MR. BIRENDRA KUMAR SHAW, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 101, FIRST FLOOR, NO.127, 6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, CSB LAYOUT, KASAVANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 035. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARGAVA D BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND: MR.AJEET KUMAR JAISWAL, S/O LATE SRI. N.P. JAISWAL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, Digitally signed RESIDING AT AADHAAR, by MEGHA H.NO. 3-3-120/A, CHAPPAL BAZAR, MOHAN Location: HIGH KACHIGUDA, COURT OF HYDERABAD-500 027. KARNATAKA …RESPONDENT (V/O/D 18/08/2025- NO NOTICE TO RESPONDENT) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER

DATED 11.03.2023 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. FAMILY COURT JUDGE AT BENGALURU IN M.C. NO. 7464/2023 TO THE EXTENT THAT THE MATTER STANDS ADJOURNED TO 25.06.2025. -2- THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The W.P.No.16014/2025 is filed seeking the following prayer: “It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

i. Set aside the order dated 11.03.2023 passed by the II Addl. Family Court Judge at Bengaluru in M.C.No.7646/2023 to the extent that the matter stands adjourned to 25.06.2025 (Annexure-A); ii. Allow I.A.No.4 filed by the petitioner (Annexure-C); iii. Alternatively, direct the learned Trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.4 in terms of the statutory period under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act; iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may be deem fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. It is the case that the MC is of the year 2023 and in

the year 2024, I.A.No.4 is filed seeking maintenance, so far the -3- said I.A. is not disposed of by the Family Court. Then this Court had called for a report from the concerned Court. The report reveals that the husband had filed I.A.No.3 before the Family Court to reject the plaint on the ground that the Court has no territorial jurisdiction, as the same was pending consideration and the same was disposed of on 11.03.2025. Till such time, as that goes to the root of the matter, they could not pass any

order on the interim maintenance. When the Court is ready to

take up the matter, a memo is filed before the Family Court stating that the matter is pending before the High Court as such the same was not considered and the orders are yet to be passed.

3. Whenever an I.A. is filed seeking interim

maintenance, the Court has to consider and pass orders as expeditiously as possible. If another application is filed for rejection of plaint that could be considered in the due course and for two years the applications of this nature, which is for the immediate requirement of the parties cannot be kept pending. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following: -4-

ORDER

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Family Court to decide the I.A. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ii. This Court is not issuing the notice to the respondent as no adverse orders are passed and disposed of the petition is in the interest of both the parties. iii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2025 Same Parties Mrs Reena Jaiswal vs Ajeet Kumar Jaiswal Same Judge Lalitha Kanneganti