- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10204 RPFC No. 100138 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100138 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MEGHA W/O. V. MANJUNATH D/O. SUNKANNA, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUDAR NAGAR, SRIDHARGADDE VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. 2. KUM. NISRGA S/O. V. MANJUNATH AGE: 4 YEARS, R/O. GUDAR NAGAR, SRIDHARGADDE VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101 SINCE MINOR R/BY HIS MOTHER I.E. PETITIONER NO.1. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) AND: V. MANJUNATHA S/O. V. SRINIVASA AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O. VENKATAPURAM CAMP, KAMALAPUR ROAD, HOSAPETE, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583201. …RESPONDENT (NOTICE SERVED TO RESPONDENT) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI IN CRL. MISC. NO.419/2022 DATED 26.06.2024 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS ORDER UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.08.18 10:37:27 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10204 RPFC No. 100138 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) Petitioners have preferred this revision petition against the order dated 26.06.2024 passed in Crl.Misc. No.419/2022 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari granting monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2 from the date of petition. 2. Despite service of notice, sole respondent/husband remained absent and un-represented. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that the respondent/husband possess agricultural land measuring 3 acre besides garden land and his family members do own two house properties not only at Hosapete but also near Toranagallu Police Station. He further submits that respondents runs a provision store and also having income from agriculture land, totally he gets annual income of Rs.5,00,000/-, despite - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10204 RPFC No. 100138 of 2024 respondent/husband has neglected and deserted the petitioners. Further, he would submit that petitioner No.2/daughter is now 5 years and she is admitted to nursery school and maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month is not adequate to petitioner No.2 for her education, clothes, medicines, etc. On all these grounds, they sought for enhancement of maintenance. 4. In the impugned order at paragraph Nos.20 to 26, the trial Court has observed as under : “20. To prove and establish the said assertions vis-a-vis alleged income of respondent, the first petitioner adduced ROR documents at Exs.P.5 to 7. On careful perusal of these ROR documents indicate that none of the properties mentioned in those ROR documents does stand in the name of respondent. In other words, respondent does not own and posses the lands which are reflected in the ROR documents at Exs.P.5 to 7. No other iota of evidence is adduced by the first petitioner to prove the fact that the said lands do belong to joint family property of respondent and others. 21. No iota of evidence is also adduced by the first petitioner to prove the fact that the respondent works for T.B. Dam of Hosapete and gets the monthly salary of Rs.40,000/-. In the absence of material evidence in this behalf, the said assertion cannot be acted upon. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10204 RPFC No. 100138 of 2024 22. No evidence is also adduced by the first petitioner to prove the fact that the respondent earns income by way of lands, from the immovable properties which are reflected by the Photo Snaps at Exs.P.8 to 10. Even the Revenue documents pertaining to those house properties are not adduced before this court. Photo documents do not prove the income of the respondent by way of rent from those immovable house properties. 23. Nothing is also adduced by the first petitioner to prove the fact that the respondent runs a Provision Store and by doing the said work he earns sufficient money per month. Thus, the income of respondent from the alleged sources of monthly salary, annual agricultural income, from the house rents are not sufficiently proved and established by adducing primary and substantive evidence. Thus the Photographs at Exs.P.8 and 10 and RTC documents at Exs.P.5 to 7 are not helpful to the first petitioner in this behalf. 24. The document at Ex.P.11 which is nothing but the details of job of respondent as reflected by the Social Media cannot be treated as a primary and substantive evidence to arrive at a conclusion that the respondent as an Electrician earns monthly income. Therefore, document at Ex.P.11 is also not helpful to the first petitioner in this behalf. 25. It is not the say of respondent that he is physically unfit to do work. Therefore this Court is of the view that, it is just and appropriate to call upon the respondent to monthly maintenance amount of Rs.6,000/- each in favour of petitioners 1 and 2 from the date of petition. The respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10204 RPFC No. 100138 of 2024 shall also pay another sum of Rs.6,000/- towards the cost of the present Litigation. 26. Therefore, this court for the aforementioned reasons, answers Point No.2 in the Affirmative in Part and passes the following;” 5. In view of above findings, the trial Court has awarded monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- each to petitioners No.1 and 2 from the date of petition. Considering the evidence placed by both parties before the Court and keeping in mind the financial position of both parties, standard of living and expenses towards education, clothes, medicine, food and shelter of petitioner No.2, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to enhance the maintenance awarded to petitioner No.2- Kumar Nisarga to Rs.8,000/- per month as against Rs.6,000/- per month awarded by the trial Court. 6. With regard to maintenance in favour of petitioner No.1 is concerned, the trial Court has properly awarded the monthly maintenance. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following : - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10204 RPFC No. 100138 of 2024 ORDER (i) Petition is partly allowed. (ii) Monthly maintenance awarded by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari in Crl.Misc.No.419/2022 dated 26.06.2024 is modified as under: (a) Respondent/husband shall pay sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as maintenance to petitioner No.2/Kumar Nisarga from the date of filing of the petition. (b) The respondent shall pay monthly maintenance of Rs.6,000/- to petitioner No.1 as per the order of the trial Court. (c) Send a copy of this order to the respondent/husband by RPAD; (d) Registry to send a copy of this order along with TCR to the concerned Court. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE CKK CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 51