- 1 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 168 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI SURESH ALIAS SURESH KIRAN BABU S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK 563 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHASKAR C.R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.ANKITHA ALIAS N.NETHRAVATHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS W/O SURESH D/O D.V.NANJUNDAPPA 2. MASTER HANEESH S/O SURESH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS 3. MASTER ABHIRAM S/O SURESH AGED 10 YEARS PETITIONERS NOS.2 TO 3 ARE BEING MINORS & REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER WHO IS THE 1ST PETITIONER. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUMBARAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 EARLIER ADDRESS RESIDENT OF NO.52-C.K.PALYA SAKALAVARA POST BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE RURAL 560 083. …RESPONDENTS (VIDE ORDER DATED 18/03/2026, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT, R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.01.2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC(FC) NO.115/2020 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOLAR., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV ORDER This Revision Petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking to set aside the order dated 07-01-2025 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar, in Crl.Misc.(FC)No.115/2020. By the impugned order, the Family Court partly allowed the maintenance petition filed by the respondents under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., directing the petitioner to pay a - 3 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to Respondent No. 1 and Rs.3,000/- each to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The Petitioner is the husband herein, who was the Respondent in the Family court. The Respondents herein are the wife and minor children, who were petitioners before the Family Court. 3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before this court. 4. The facts leading to this petition are that the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 were married on 01-03- 2009 at Guttahalli Temple, Kolar, and subsequently resided together at Kumbarahalli Village. Out of this wedlock, two male children, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, were born. The Respondents allege that the matrimonial relationship soured due to demands for additional dowry and physical harassment, eventually leading to their desertion by the Petitioner, who failed to provide any financial support despite having sufficient means. - 4 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 5. In the proceedings before the Family Court, the Petitioner contested the claim on three primary grounds. Firstly, he alleged that the marriage was void ab initio as Respondent No. 1 had a subsisting marriage with one Sri Nagaraj at the time of their wedding. Secondly, he categorically disputed the paternity of the two minor children. Thirdly, he pleaded financial incapacity, stating he was a part-time driver with meager earnings and the responsibility of caring for his aged parents. 6. Upon a comprehensive review of the evidence, the Family Court concluded that the Petitioner had willfully neglected to maintain his family. The Court below placed reliance on documentary evidence, including birth certificates and government-issued identification such as Aadhaar and Ration cards, which consistently identified the Petitioner as the father. Furthermore, the Court drew an adverse inference against the Petitioner for his refusal to undergo a DNA test to substantiate his denial of paternity. 7. In this revision, the Petitioner reiterates that the Family Court erred in its appreciation of the evidence. - 5 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 He contends that Respondent No. 1 does not qualify as a "wife" under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. due to the alleged prior marriage. He further argues that the maintenance quantum of Rs.11,000/- is disproportionate to his actual income and that the Family court failed to consider the inconsistencies in the testimony of Respondent No. 1 regarding their period of separation. 8. It is a well-settled principle that the revisionary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is limited. This Court does not sit as a Court of Appeal to re-appreciate facts unless the findings of the lower court are shown to be perverse, illegal, or suffer from a jurisdictional error. The primary objective of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to provide a summary remedy to prevent vagrancy and destitution. 9. Regarding the validity of the marriage, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamala vs. M.R. Mohan Kumar reported in 2019 (11) SCC 491 has clarified that strict proof of marriage is not a prerequisite for maintenance in summary proceedings. Given that the - 6 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 Petitioner admitted to the marriage ceremony and a substantial period of cohabitation, the burden was on him to prove a legally subsisting prior marriage of Respondent No. 1. Having failed to produce a marriage decree or examine the alleged first husband, the Petitioner cannot avoid his liability on this ground in a maintenance proceeding. 10. On the issue of paternity, the Petitioner’s refusal to undergo DNA testing is a significant factor. Indicating a strong presumption of legitimacy for children born during a valid marriage. The Respondents produced multiple public documents affirming the Petitioner’s parentage. In the absence of "non-access" evidence and coupled with the Petitioner’s refusal to avail scientific testing, the Family Court was justified in affirming his parental status. 11. Regarding the quantum of maintenance, the Petitioner is an able-bodied man with an admitted profession as a driver. The law presumes that an able- bodied husband has the capacity to maintain his wife and - 7 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 minor children. An award of Rs.11,000/- per month for three individuals, covering food, clothing, and the education of two growing children, is reasonable and barely sufficient for basic sustenance in the present economic climate. 12. Having scrutinized the Family court records, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order dated 07-01-2025. The Family Court has balanced the needs of the Respondents with the capacity of the Petitioner based on the available evidence. Consequently, there are no grounds for interference. ORDER (i). The Revision Petition (FC) No.168/2025 is hereby Dismissed. (ii). The order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar, in Crl.Misc.(FC)No. 115/2020 dated 07- 01-2025 is Upheld. (iii). The Petitioner is directed to clear all arrears of maintenance within three months from today and - 8 - RPFC No. 168 of 2025 continue to pay the monthly maintenance on or before the 10th of every month. SD/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE bnv