- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4692 RPFC No. 171 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.171 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. ROHITH H S/O MR.HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT HOUSE NO.1077, GANGE ROAD, 1ST CROSS G AND H BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU – 570 023 PRESENTLY AT KIKKERI VILLAGE KIKKERI HOBLI, K.R.PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 423 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPAAJI S., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. A. YOGASHREE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. CHITRA V., W/O MR. ROHIT H., D/O LATE VIJAYA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. MISS. PRAGNA R., D/O MR. ROHITH H., AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/ MOTHER MRS CHITHRA V., Digitally signed by RAMYA D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4692 RPFC No. 171 of 2024 BOTH: R/AT HOUSE NO. 1077, GANGE ROAD, 1ST CROSS G AND H BLOCK, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU – 570 023 BOTH: ARE PRESENTLY R/AT HOUSE NO 45, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST STAGE, GANGOTHRI EXTENSION, MYSURU CITY – 570 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC. 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.832/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRL. FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 challenging the exparte order dated 29.12.2023 passed by III Addl. Prl. Family Judge, Mysore, in Crl.Misc.No.832/2023. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4692 RPFC No. 171 of 2024 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the learned Family Judge is illegal and arbitrary as it was an exparte order where the petitioner was placed absent and notice or summons was not served on the petitioner. It is also the contention that no materials were produced and placed before the Family Court to establish the income of the petitioner or that of the respondent and the order is passed awarding maintenance of Rs.7,500/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2 who are the wife and child of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the summons was not served to him and hence, he could not appear and represent before the Family Court. Thereby he could not file his statement of objections to contest the matter by adducing evidence on controverting the statements on both made by the respondent and place the material in his possession to contest the matter. Therefore, he contends that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4692 RPFC No. 171 of 2024 impugned order passed by the Family Court deserves to be set aside and he be provided an opportunity to contest the matter and place all materials in his defence. Hence, he seeks to allow this petition and consequently, set aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents contends that the notice was duly served on the petitioner, which he has deliberately not claimed only with an intention to protract the proceedings and delay and avoid payment of maintenance to the respondents. He sustains the impugned order passed by the learned Family Judge and seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The fact remains that the impugned order passed is an exparte order. The notice and summons sent to the petitioner is held to be sufficient and deemed as - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4692 RPFC No. 171 of 2024 service of notice. The fact also remains that the petitioner has not contested the matter. He has not raised any defence, neither he has cross-examined or placed any material to defend his case. Therefore, an opportunity is required to be granted to the petitioner to contest the matter and put forth the same before the Family Court. 7. Nevertheless as the matter is a matrimonial proceedings initiated by the wife and daughter for maintenance, they will have to be provided reasonable amount of maintenance for daily sustenance. 8. Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by this Court on 31.08.2024 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondents can be continued till the Family Court decides the matter afresh in accordance with law. It is open for the respondents to file additional documents or argue the matter for enhancement, which shall be considered by the learned Family Judge after providing an - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4692 RPFC No. 171 of 2024 opportunity to the petitioner herein and also to the respondents. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. Petition is allowed and remanded. ii. Impugned order dated 29.12.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.832/2023 by III Addl. Prl. Family Judge, Mysore, is hereby set aside. iii. The Family Court shall provide an opportunity to the petitioner to defend his case. iv. The petitioner shall file statement of objections, contest the matter and adduce evidence. v. It is needless to mention that the Family Court shall decide the matter afresh without being influenced by any of the opinion expressed by this Court. vi. Parties shall appear before the Family Court on 25.02.2025 without awaiting any further notice from the Family Court or from this Court. vii. All contentions are kept open. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4692 RPFC No. 171 of 2024 viii. The petitioner shall deposit the entire arrears of maintenance as ordered by this Court at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per month. The respondents are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner before this Court. ix. Registry shall disburse and release the amount in favour of the respondents upon the respondents filing necessary Bank details. x. Ordered accordingly. xi. In view of disposal of the petition and amount being permitted to withdraw, I.A.No.1/2025 for withdrawal of the deposited amount is allowed. SD/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE PB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24