- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12287-DB RP No. 162 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REVIEW PETITION NO. 162 OF 2020 IN M.F.A. NO.971 OF 2011 (FC) BETWEEN: SRI S.RENUKA PRASAD, S/O LATE S SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.17, 1ST FLOOR, A STREET EAST LINK ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K N NITHISH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT MAMATHA, W/O S RENUKA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.61, 7TH CROSS, L.N.PURA, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12287-DB RP No. 162 of 2020 SRIRAMPURA, BANGALORE - 560 021. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT SOWMYA SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO 1) ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN MFA NO.971/2011(FC). 2) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12287-DB RP No. 162 of 2020 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) Mr. K N Nitish, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues for review of this Court's order dated 25.10.2019 in M.F.A.No.971/2011 [FC], which is disposed of on 25.10.2019, and the learned counsel's submissions are in two folds. The learned counsel submits that this Court has interfered with the Family Court's Judgment and Decree dated 05.01.2011 in MVC No.1663/2003 and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 opining that the petitioner has absolved the respondent of all the allegations of cruelty but that would call for interference. However, this Court is not persuaded to opine that there is an error apparent to justify a review on this score. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12287-DB RP No. 162 of 2020 The learned counsel next submits that this Court has directed the petitioner to pay to the respondent every month Rs.10,000/- as maintenance "exclusive of House Rent" calling upon the petitioner to meet the medical expenses that would be necessary for the respondent. The leaned counsel submits that the petitioner's grievance is not with these two orders but is with the observation that the amount of Rs.10,000/- per month would be excluding the House Rent and in elaboration, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner as of today is paying a sum of Rs.22,000/- per month as rent for the premises that is occupied by the respondent and the son and that there could be unlimited claim. The respondent remains absent, and this Court has examined whether there must be any observation on the petitioner's responsibility to pay an uncapped amount to the respondent towards House Rent. This - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12287-DB RP No. 162 of 2020 Court has not specified any amount and this cannot be construed as an obligation without limits and there must be a reasonable cap. On a careful consideration, this Court opines that the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay anything in excess of Rs.25,000/- per month towards House Rent. The petition stands disposed of with the observations as aforesaid. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE BRN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1