- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29297 RPFC No. 239 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 239 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI HARISH N., S/O SRI NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT (NEAR ABBIGARE GOVERMENT SCHOOL), ABBIGERE MAIN ROAD, ABBIGERE, CHIKKABANAVARA POST, BANGALORE - 560 090. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ADINARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHWETHA H., W/O SRI HARISH N., D/O LATE HANUMANTH RAO, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. VRUSHALI H., D/O SRI HARISH N, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHWETHA H R/AT NO. 21, RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, NEAR BRAHMA TEMPLE, ANDRALLI MAIN ROAD KARIHOBANAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE- 560 073. …RESPONDENTS (R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29297 RPFC No. 239 of 2025 R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.619/2018 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER This revision petition is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in Crl.Misc.No.619/2018 dated 16.11.2024. 2. Heard Sri.Adinarayanappa learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served upon respondents, respondents have not chosen to contest the matter. 3. First respondent being the wife and second respondent being the minor daughter of the petitioner herein filed a case invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29297 RPFC No. 239 of 2025 seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month from the petitioner. Family Court through the impugned order directed petitioner to pay respondents a sum of Rs.7,500/- each towards their maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner on receipt of notice in Crl.Misc. No.619/2018 entered into appearance and engaged an advocate. His advocate filed the statement of objections. But when the matter was taken up for trial, petitioner met with an accident and therefore, he could not pursue the matter. Learned counsel states that petitioner got examined himself as RW1. But he could not appear for cross-examination as he met with an accident at that time. Family Court basing on the evidence produced by respondents passed the impugned order and thus, opportunity was denied to the petitioner to produce his evidence. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29297 RPFC No. 239 of 2025 5. Respondents filed a case claiming maintenance in the year 2018 and the case stood disposed of in the year 2024. On which date petitioner met with an accident, what injuries he sustained, how many days he was under bed rest and how many days it took for him to recover is not stated anywhere. No material whatsoever is on record disclosing those facts. That apart, as per the version of the petitioner himself, an advocate was representing him. Thus, nothing prevented the petitioner to inform his counsel at least through phone giving the reasons for non- appearance. If it was done, the counsel for the petitioner would have requested the Family Court to adjourn the matter. But nothing of that sort appears to have been done. As earlier stated there is no material on record to show that petitioner met with an accident during pendency of proceedings that too after he got examined himself as RW1-in-chief and when the matter was posted for his cross-examination. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29297 RPFC No. 239 of 2025 6. Family Court discussing at length with regard to the merits of the matter, directed petitioner to pay respondent Nos.1 and 2 a sum of Rs.7,500/- per month each for their maintenance. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this revision petition. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. In the light of dismissal of the revision petition, the proceedings in I.A.No.2/2025 are closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18