- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9918 RPFC No. 100169 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100169 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SHRI BASAVARAJ S/O. SANGAPPA KALYANI AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. PLOT NO. 55, SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR, APMC ROAD, BELAGAVI, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI 590010. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PRIYANKA H. PAWAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI UMESH S/O. BASAVARAJ KALYANI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O. NO. 62, 6TH, B MAIN, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYA NAGAR, HAMPI NAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE 40. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THE PETITION BY MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 15.07.2023 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BELAGAVI IN CRL.MISC. NO.553/2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.18 10:37:37 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9918 RPFC No. 100169 of 2023 ORAL ORDERT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act by the petitioner/father against his son for modification of the order dated 15.07.2023 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi in Criminal Miscellaneous No.553/2017. 2. Despite service of notice, respondent/son remained absent and un-represented. 3. I have heard arguments of revision petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner/father submits that the petitioner/father is old aged person, even interim maintenance application was also not allowed by the trial Court. The trial Court ought to have granted maintenance from the date of petition. The trial Court has not recorded any reason for not granting the said maintenance from the date of petition. The trial Court has not given proper reason while awarding maintenance of only Rs.6,000/- per month, as the respondent/son is earning more than - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9918 RPFC No. 100169 of 2023 Rs.1,25,000/- per month. The petitioner is suffering from age related ailments and the pension is not sufficient to meet his livelihood. On all these grounds, he sought for allowing of this petition. 4. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial Court has held that the petitioner proves that the pension i.e., now he is getting is not sufficient from him to maintain himself and respondent/son has not made any provision for maintenance. Considering the financial status of both parties, the trial Court has awarded maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to the petitioner/father from the date of order. In paragraph no.31 to 35 of the order dated 15.07.2023, the trial Court has observed as under : “31. It may be true that the Petitioner is a pensioner. The records reveal that the Petitioner is getting pension of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- p.m. In today's world it is difficult to conceive that a person of the age of 70-75 years could lead a decent life with an amount of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/-p.m. The records reveal that the Petitioner is suffering from some age related ailments. He may have to spend - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9918 RPFC No. 100169 of 2023 some money for his medicine. Certainly it would be difficult for a person aged 70-75 years to lead his life with a pension amount of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.9,000/- p.m. that too when he is staying alone. Being the son of the Petitioner, it is the moral and legal obligation of the Respondent to help his father financially in his evening years. Though the Respondent is saying that even now he is ready to look after his father if he comes over to Bengaluru, in my opinion, having regard to the present relationship of the Petitioner with his wife and son, the same appears to be not possible for now. 32. Though in his Statement of Objections, the Respondent has contended that it would not be possible for him to pay maintenance to the Petitioner having regard to his present financial condition, during the course of arguments, the Respondent has made known to the Court through his Counsel that he is ready to pay reasonable maintenance allowance to the Petitioner. 33. From the conspectus of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence placed on record, I am of the opinion that the Petitioner has proved that with the pension that he is now getting, he is unable to maintain himself and that the Respondent has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9918 RPFC No. 100169 of 2023 sufficient source of income to pay maintenance to him. 34. Having regard to the age of the Petitioner, the amount of pension that he is now getting, his needs, reasonable expenses for his maintenance, and reasonable expenses for the maintenance of the Respondent and his family members and the other responsibilities of the Respondent, I am of the opinion that awarding maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to the Petitioner would be just and reasonable. For the above reasons, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative. Point No.2 is answered in the Affirmative by holding that the Petitioner is entitled for maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. 35. POINT NO.3: In view of my findings on Points No.1 and 2, the Petitioner is entitled for maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as borne out from the evidence of the parties, I am of the opinion that it would be proper to grant maintenance from the date of the Order. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition filed by the Petitioner under Section 125 of CR.P.C. is allowed in part. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9918 RPFC No. 100169 of 2023 The Respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- p.m. to the petitioner from the date of the order. A certified copy of this Order is ordered to be supplied to the Petitioner free of cost.” 5. It is admitted that the respondent/son is working in Bengaluru, he is also looking after his mother. It is stated by the petitioner/father that the trial Court has not awarded interim maintenance. The trial Court has not assigned any reason for awarding the maintenance from the date of order. Considering the financial status, standard of living, age and occupation of the revision petitioner/father, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to modify the order of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month. The respondent shall pay the maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner from the date of filing of the petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9918 RPFC No. 100169 of 2023 ORDER (i) Revision petition is partly allowed. (ii) The order of the trial Court is modified as under : The respondent/son shall pay maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the petitioner/father from the date of filing of the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. (iii) Send a certified copy of this order to the respondent/son through RPAD forthwith. (iv) Registry to send a copy of this order to the trial Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 45