- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9749 RPFC No. 354 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 354 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. R. MADHU S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RO SRI RANGANATHA NILAYA, 3RD CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, RAMAJOISH NAGARA, ARKAVATHI ROAD, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY C,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RUQSANA KOUSER W/O R.MADHU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 2. KUM. ARNAV S/O R.MADHU, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9749 RPFC No. 354 of 2025 3. KUM. MAYRA D/O R.MADHU, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO. 1 SMT. RUQSANA KOUSER RESPONDENTS ALL ARE R/AT BEHIND MINORITY WELFARE, RAMESH BUILDING, RAJIVGANDHI NAGARA, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED UMMAR FAROOQ, ADVOCATE; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.04.2025 PASSED IN Crl. MISC NO.338/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.144 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9749 RPFC No. 354 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Gopalakrishnamurthy C., learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.G. M. Sharath Kumar, who represents Sri. Mohammed Ummar Farooq, learned counsel on record for the respondents. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.338/2024 dated 08.04.2025. 3. Respondents filed a petition against the petitioner herein seeking maintenance from him. Family Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner herein to pay respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month and respondent Nos.2 and 3 a sum of Rs.6,000/- each per month towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner did not receive any notice whatsoever from the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9749 RPFC No. 354 of 2025 Family Court and therefore, he could not contest the matter. Respondents obtained an ex-parte order. Later, they filed an execution petition. Even in execution petition, petitioner did not receive notice. Subsequently, a warrant was issued against him and at that time, he came to know that respondents filed a petition claiming maintenance and got an order. Learned counsel thereby states that petitioner could not get opportunity to project his case and therefore a fair opportunity may be given to the petitioner to contest the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand states that respondents have no source of livelihood and hence protecting their interests, the revision petition may be disposed of. 6. The certified copy of the order sheet filed in execution proceedings in Crl.Misc.No..188 of 2025 reveals that notice sent to the petitioner herein was returned with an endorsement that he is not in the given address. In the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9749 RPFC No. 354 of 2025 impugned order, there is a clear mention that the petitioner herein was placed ex-parte. 7. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner did not receive any notice whatsoever either in the petition filed under Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 or in the execution proceedings, this Court is of the view that to protect the interests of the petitioner, the revision petition has to be disposed of, remanding the matter back to the Family Court for fresh consideration and disposal. Also this Court is of the view that the interests of the respondents are required to be protected. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER i) The order rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No. 338/2024 dated 08.04.2025 is set-aside. ii) Both the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 10.04.2026. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9749 RPFC No. 354 of 2025 iii) Issuance of further notice is not required. iv) Petitioner herein who is the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.338/2024 is directed to file his statement of objections/counter and his affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities by 21.04.2026. v) Family Court to decide the matter afresh on receiving the evidence from both sides. Family Court is granted liberty to pass adverse orders in case petitioner/respondent fails to file his statement of objections/counter and affidavit disclosing his assets and liabilities by 21.04.2026. vi) Till the disposal of the case, petitioner/ respondent is directed to pay respondent No.1/petitioner No.1 a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and respondent Nos. 2 and 3/petitioner Nos.2 and 3 a sum of Rs.3,000/- each per month towards maintenance pendente lite. vii) Family Court is directed to disburse the amount in deposit to the respondents/petitioners to the extent they are entitled at the rate mentioned supra till now. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9749 RPFC No. 354 of 2025 Balance amount, if any be adjusted and paid towards the sum which will fall due for the subsequent months. viii) Amount, if any in deposit be transmitted to the concerned family Court forthwith. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18