- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18539 WP No. 10239 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 10239 OF 2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR. S. VENKATESH, S/O SHAMAIAH, AGE 42 YEARS, DISMISSED HEAD MASTER, RESIDENT OF BHOVIPALYA, SEETAKALLU MAJARE, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 140. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VICTOR MANOHARAN S, ADVOCATE) AND: MASTER. YASHU.V, AGE 5 YEARS, MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER MS. H.H. GEETHA, AGE 32 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BHOVIPALYA, SEETAKALLU MAJARE, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK - 572 140. …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2018 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT TUMKUR, IN C.MIS.NO.95 OF 2016, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., 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 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18539 WP No. 10239 of 2019 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in C.Misc.No.95/2016 dated 06.12.2018 by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Tumakuru, the petitioner is before this Court, whereby the Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/- from the date of petition until passing of further orders. 2. The respondent herein i.e., the son of the petitioner has filed petition stating that his mother and the petitioner were the residents of Bovipalya Village, Seetakallu Majare, Urdigere Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and they are the relatives. On 21.10.2012, when his mother was alone in her parents' house, the petitioner herein came to her house and has committed rape on her and she had intimated the said fact to her mother, relatives and the elders of the Village. She intended to lodge complaint against the petitioner before the concerned Police Station and in view of the Panchayath held in the Village, she had not given the complaint and even in the Panchayath, the petitioner herein has agreed to marry the mother of the respondent and has also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the grandparents towards marriage expenses. But later after - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18539 WP No. 10239 of 2019 continuing relationship with her, he refused to marry her. She had lodged a complaint on 26.08.2013 and it was registered as Crime No. 233/2013 and after investigation, police have filed the charge sheet. It is the case of the respondent that the father is working as Headmaster and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. A DNA test was done and as the same was positive, the Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.3,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in criminal case i.e., filed by the mother of the respondent, he was acquitted. It is submitted that when he has acquitted in the criminal case, all the more, it strengthens his case and the Court ought not to have granted maintenance to the respondent. It is submitted that the order needs to be set aside. Further, it is also submitted that as per the order of the Court, he is continuing to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent. 4. Though the notice is served on the respondent, no vakalath is filed on behalf of the respondent. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18539 WP No. 10239 of 2019 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The DNA test results shows that respondent No.1 is the son of the petitioner. It is also an admitted fact that in criminal case, the petitioner is acquitted. In the criminal case, the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, whereas, in this case, the DNA test reveals the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner has a responsibility to maintain the respondent. The Trial Court had considered all these aspects and had rightly granted an amount of Rs.3,000/-. Mere acquittal in a criminal case cannot be a ground for this Court to disentitle the respondent from having the maintenance. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is dismissed. (ii) All IAs., in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA, CT: BHK