- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35558 RPFC No. 21 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 21 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA W/O DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 2. KUM USHA D/O DASE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.26 10TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI BANGALORE-560079. PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJANNA.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP B.R., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS) AND: SRI DASE GOWDA S/O LATE HUCHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT YALACHAVADI VILLAGE HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572126. RESPONDENT (RESPONDNET SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.469/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BANGALORE,PARTLY ALLOWING THE Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35558 RPFC No. 21 of 2022 PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 127 OF CPC FOR ENHANCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE AND ETC,. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL ORDER In spite of service of notice, respondent remained absent. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 3. This petition is filed by the wife and child against the order dated 27.11.2021 passed in Crl.Misc.No.469/2016 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred as to 'Family Court') seeking for enhancement. 4. Initially, the wife and daughter has filed C.Misc.No.58/2007 before the Family Court. The Family Court granted an amount of Rs.1,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.500/- to petitioner No.2. Aggrieved by the said order she filed Crl.Misc.No.469/2016 for enhancement. Considering the arguments, the Family Court has enhanced the amounts Rs.2,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- to petitioner No.2. Aggrieved by the said order, she preferred this petition and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35558 RPFC No. 21 of 2022 mainly contended that respondent is earning more than Rs.30,000/- per month by doing overtime job, but falsely shown his salary as Rs.15,000/- per month. She has no source of income, she is living in the house of her elder brother, she has to take care of herself and petitioner No.1. But the Family Court has granted meager amounts. She further stated that, her daughter is studying first year Engineering in Computer Science course, she has to stay in Mysore for study purpose, the college fees and expenses comes to Rs.1,00,000/- per year and her day to day expenses is Rs.15,000/- per month. But the Family Court has not considered all the aspects and granted meager amounts therefore, requested for further enhancement. 5. The Family Court observed in the affidavit filed by both the parties that except salary of the respondent, he has no other source of income to maintain petitioner Nos.1 and 2. It is stated that, respondent is residing with his second wife and two children and his mother is aged 85 years and she is also residing with him. Further stated that respondent is presently working in Twisting Mill in Magadi Town and getting a salary of Rs.15,000/- per month. She filed Ex.P1 certified copy of the judgment in C.Misc.No.58/2007 and school fee receipts under - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35558 RPFC No. 21 of 2022 Exs.P2 and P3. It is further stated that, petitioner No.1 is aged 40 years and studied SSLC. She stated that respondent is earning Rs.30,000/- per month, but falsely stated it as Rs.15,000/-, but she has not filed any document to prove his income as Rs.30,000/- per month. In the affidavit he stated that he is getting only Rs.15,000/- per month and the Family Court observed that he has no other source of income. He performed another marriage and staying with his second wife and two children and his mother aged 85 years is also depending on him. The Family Court considered all the aspects and rightly enhanced maintenance amount of Rs.2,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 and Rs.1,500/- per month to petitioner No.2. This Court finds no reason to interfere in this case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, confirming the order of the Family Court. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12