- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 174 OF 2021 C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 145 OF 2020 IN RPFC No. 174/2021: BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA, W/O SRI. T. BALAN, D/O SRI H. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, PRAKASHAPURAM, KETHI VILLAGE, OOTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT-643001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.Y. K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. T. BALAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O SRI. THIMMEGOWDA, 2. SRI. B. GURUMURTHY S/O SRI. T. BALAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 3. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN, S/O SRI. T. BALAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT "GURULAKSHMI NIVAS", NO.11/F, 1ST BLOCK, MADHUVANA LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ARCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED IN C.MIS.638/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. IN RPFC NO. 145/2020: BETWEEN: SRI. T. BALAN, S/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT: "GURULAKSHMI NIVAS" NO. 11//F 1 BLOCK MADHUVANA LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA 23RD STAGE, MYSURU - 570023. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 AND: 1. SMT. MANJULA P., ESTRANGED W/O SRI T BALAN AGE 68 YEARS, R/A SHREE NILAYA PRKASHPURAM, KETTI VILLAGE, OOTY, TAMILNADU - 643215. 2. SRI. B. GURUMURTHY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SRI T. BALAN, 3. SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN AGE 36 YEARS, S/O. SRI. T. BALAN, RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT: GURULAKSHMI NIVAS NO 11/F, 1 BLOCK MADHUVANA LAYOUT SRIRAMPURA , 23RD STAGE, MYSURU - 570023. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.Y K NARAYANA SHARMA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 10.06.2026) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED IN C.MIS.638/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR, ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in RPFC No.174/2021, who is representing the respondents in RPFC No.145/2020. Also heard Ms.Archana, who represents Sri.Bhargav G., learned counsel for respondents in RPFC No.174/2021, who is representing the petitioner in RPFC No.145/2020. 2. These two revision petitions arise out of the order that is rendered by the Court of IV Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.Case No.638/2017 dated 15.02.2020. For the sake of convenience of discussion, parties to the proceedings in both the writ petitions will hereinafter be referred to as wife, husband and children. Wife filed Crl.Misc.Case No.638/2017 against her husband and children claiming maintenance of ₹1,00,000/- per month. Family Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 through the impugned order directed husband to pay wife a sum of ₹30,000/- per month towards maintenance. The case against children stood dismissed. Dismissal of the case against the children is not agitated either by the wife or the husband in these revision petitions. While the contention of the wife is that she is entitled to a higher sum as maintenance, the version of the husband is that the wife is not entitled for any maintenance. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel who represents the wife contended that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1974. Wife did not beget children for considerable period. She gave birth to his elder son in the year 1981 and to the younger son in the year 1984. They led marital life for about 30 years. Husband maintained multiple illicit relationships, due to which wife could not stay with her husband and thereby she left the matrimonial home. Husband filed a petition seeking decree of divorce, but it was dismissed on merits. Wife has no source of earnings. Elder son is a Doctor and younger son having completed his M.B.A., is working in a company. Wife needs lot of amount for her treatment, medicines and maintenance. Husband is having five houses, he maintains five cars and he is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 in possession of huge landed property. To meet all her requirements, wife needs ₹1,00,000/- per month. But Family Court granted a meager sum of ₹30,000/- towards maintenance and therefore modifying the order passed, the sum claimed may be granted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel who represents the husband submitted that wife left the matrimonial home without justifiable cause. It is the husband who looked after all the necessities of the children and performed their marriages. Wife lives in the house of the husband. Furthermore, wife maintains one private road at Ooty. The vehicles passing on the road should pay for the use of said road and thereby she earns a lot. Thus, there is no necessity for her to claim any maintenance from the husband and therefore the order passed by the Family Court directing husband to pay wife a sum of ₹30,000/- per month towards maintenance is required to be set aside. 5. No material whatsoever was produced by the husband to show that wife maintains one private road at Ooty and that she charges for use of said road and collects money. Likewise no material was produced to show that wife has got - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 any other source of earnings. Providing shelter itself is not sufficient. It is for the husband to look after the wife by providing food, proper clothing, medical facilities etc.,. Family Court in the impugned order discussed at length with regard to the reasons due to which wife is residing separately and the relationship of husband with other women. Family Court has also extracted the findings given in that regard in Ex.P12 judgment. Also discussing about the financial capacity of the husband, Family Court directed husband to pay wife a sum of ₹30,000/- per month towards her maintenance. The sum thus granted is neither excessive nor exorbitant. Basing on the financial status of husband, such amount was ordered to be paid to the wife towards maintenance. As husband failed to establish that wife can maintain herself and as wife failed to establish that the sum granted towards maintenance is on lower side and that she is entitled to a higher sum, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds in these revision provisions so as to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Family Court. Thus, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that both the revision petitions deserved to be dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020 Resultantly, both the revision petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34