- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28196 RPFC No. 281 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 281 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SMT. NANJAMMA, W/O. LATE NANJUNDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.22/1, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH ‘B’ CROSS, 7TH MAIN, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR .P PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: KUMARI. JINISHA M. REDDY, D/O. LATE MANJUNATHA REDDY .N, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER, SMT. NETHRA K.R., W/O. LATE MANJUNATH REDDY .N, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT. KACHAMCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KENKERE POST, GOWRIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. PINCODE – 561 210. …RESPONDENT (R1-REP. BY R2-SERVED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2024 PASSED IN Crl.Misc.NO.517/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28196 RPFC No. 281 of 2024 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 SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.517/2017 dated 02.12.2024 by the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had rejected the case of the daughter-in-law and partly allowed the case of the granddaughter by granting maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of petition till she attains majority and directed to pay arrears of maintenance within 90 days from the date of the order and regularly pay the monthly maintenance. 2. Petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law and petitioner No.2 is the granddaughter and the respondents are father-in- law and mother-in-law of petitioner No.1 and the grandparents to petitioner No.2 before the Family Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28196 RPFC No. 281 of 2024 3. It is the case of the daughter-in-law that she had filed the petition under Section 125 of CrPC. seeking direction to the respondents to pay the maintenance of an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month to the daughter-in-law and an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month to the granddaughter. It is the case that the husband of petitioner No.1 and the father of petitioner No.2 during his lifetime was having several businesses and he was earning an amount Rs.8,00,000/- per month. He had movable assets worth Rs.11,23,995/-. According to them, they were having several properties and from the said properties they were deriving an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month. The husband of petitioner No.1 died on 08.02.2016 leaving behind the daughter and the wife and after the death they were ill- treated by the in-laws i.e., the respondents as such the petition is filed seeking maintenance. The grandparents have filed their objections to the petition stating that they are not liable to pay maintenance. 4. The Family Court had considered the respective arguments and held that the daughter-in-law is not entitled for maintenance from the in-laws. However, as the in-laws are owning certain movable and immovable properties, it is the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28196 RPFC No. 281 of 2024 duty of the grandparents to provide their share of contribution towards the educational expenses and maintenance of the minor child till she attains majority. Accordingly, the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month to the granddaughter and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ grandmother submits that the petition filed by both the daughter-in-law and the granddaughter against the respondents/in-laws/grandparents is not maintainable under Section 125 of CrPC. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 125 of CrPC. and submits that there is no obligation to the grandparents either to provide maintenance to the granddaughter or to the daughter-in-law. As far as the daughter-in-law is concerned, as already the Family Court had dismissed the petition. He submits that the order passed by the Family Court is without jurisdiction and the said petition is not maintainable. 6. Though notice is served on the respondent, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28196 RPFC No. 281 of 2024 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The petition is filed under Section 125 of CrPC. The petitioner before this Court is the grandmother and respondent is the granddaughter, who is represented by her mother. The father of the respondent is no more. If there are certain joint family properties which the daughter-in-law and the granddaughter are entitled their remedy is elsewhere to file a petition for partition, but whereas under Section 125 of CrPC., they cannot maintain this petition against the grandmother or the in-laws. Just because the grandparents are having certain landed properties, the Family Court ought not to have passed this order and the order that is passed is beyond the purport of Section 125 of CrPC. In that view of the matter, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The order impugned passed in Crl.Misc. No.517/2017 dated 02.12.2024 by the I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside leaving it open to the respondent to avail the appropriate remedy. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28196 RPFC No. 281 of 2024 ii. Accordingly, the RPFC is allowed. iii. All I.As., in the RPFC shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 190