- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7993 RPFC No. 203 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 203 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. KRISHNAPRASAD M S/O SRI MANJUNATH KALKUR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.73/A, 60 FEET ROAD, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, MATTHIKERE, BANGALORE - 560 054. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADITYA KARTHIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HARSHA SWAROOP P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SAHANA H P W/O KRISHNAPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. KUM. M.K. SHARADI @ M.S. SHARAVI AGED ABOUT 1½ YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7993 RPFC No. 203 of 2024 D/O KRISHNA PRASAD AND IS REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN HER MOTHER SMT. SAHANA H.P. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. JHANAVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R. GOULAY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2 MINOR REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO. 564/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7993 RPFC No. 203 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Aditya who represents Sri. Harsha Swaroop.P learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Ms. Jhanavi who represents Sri. Chandrakant R Goulay learned counsel on record for respondents. 2. Seeking the Court to set aside the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.564/2023 dated 21.06.2024, this revision petition is filed. 3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Therefore, petitioner herein will be referred to as husband, respondent No.1 as wife and respondent No.2 as child. 4. Family Court through the impugned order directed the husband to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to his wife and Rs.6,000/- per month to his child towards maintenance and aggrieved by the order thus passed, this revision petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that wife and child filed a petition against his client seeking maintenance. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7993 RPFC No. 203 of 2024 Petitioner received notice in the said case. He engaged the services of an advocate. But as his mother was suffering from cancer, petitioner was solely attending his mother. Mother was taken to several hospitals for treatment. But ultimately she passed away. Petitioner who was attending his mother could not concentrate on the proceedings initiated by his wife and child claiming maintenance. Thereby Family Court allowed the petition filed by his wife and child and ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.6,000/- per month to the child towards their maintenance. Learned counsel submits that wife is guilty of desertion and therefore she is not entitled for any maintenance at all. However as the petitioner/husband failed to contest the matter, Family Court passed such an order. Learned counsel thereby seeks to give an opportunity to the petitioner/husband to file his counter/ statement of objections and also statement of assets and liabilities so that Family Court can dispose of the matter on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand states that respondent No.1/wife has no source of earnings and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7993 RPFC No. 203 of 2024 she has to look after herself and her child. Learned counsel submits that the order rendered by the Family Court is reasonable and valid and therefore the revision petition is not maintainable. 7. At para 3 of the impugned order Family Court made a mention that respondent (revision petitioner herein) appeared in person in obedience to the notice issued and engaged the services of several advocates from time to time but he has not filed his objection statement and affidavit of assets and liabilities. 8. The version of the petitioner/husband is that his mother was suffering from cancer and therefore he was attending his mother and thus he could not concentrate on the proceedings that went on. The fact that the petitioner's mother suffered from cancer and ultimately died due to illness is not disputed by the respondents. Thus, having considered the ground urged and with an intention to give fair opportunity to the petitioner/husband to project his case before the Family Court, this Court is of the view that the revision petition is required to be allowed. However taking into consideration the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7993 RPFC No. 203 of 2024 needs and necessities of the respondents, this Court considers desirable to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1/wife and Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.2/child towards interim maintenance till the disposal of the main case. Thus the following:- ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed. ii. The order rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.564/2023 dated 21.06.2024 is set aside. iii. The matter is remanded back for fresh disposal. iv. Family Court, Mysuru is directed to give time for a week to the petitioner/husband to file his counter/statement of objections and statement of assets and liabilities. v. Family Court to conduct enquiry, receive evidence if any produced by both parties and to dispose of the matter on merits as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7993 RPFC No. 203 of 2024 vi. Petitioner to pay respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards interim maintenance. vii. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru forthwith. In the light of the disposal of revision petition itself, proceedings on I.A No.2/2025 are closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24