- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010094182026 NC: 2026:KHC:36464 RPFC No. 35 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA RPFC NO.35 OF 2026 BETWEEN: REVANNASIDDAIAH R. S/O. LATE REVANNA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT 8TH CROSS NEAR VIVEKANANDA SCHOOL VIDHYANAGARA TUMAKURU-573 127 …PETITIONER (BY SRI NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHAGYAMMA W/O. REVANNASIDDAIAH R. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 2. HARISHKUMAR S. R. S/O. REVANNASIDDAIAH R. AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. HAMSAPRIYA S. R. D/O. REVANNASIDDAIAH R. AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT- KPTCL QUARTERS NEAR SHIVAKUMARASWAMY CIRCLE Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010094182026 NC: 2026:KHC:36464 RPFC No. 35 of 2026 KOTHI THOPU TUMAKURU-572 102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRATHEEP K. C., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED IN C.MISC NO.48/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This petition is filed against the order of the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.48/2023 dated 25.09.2025. 2. Wife and children of Sri.Revannasiddaiah.R/petitioner herein filed an application for maintenance of Rs.20,000/- to petitioner No.1 and Rs.10,000/- each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 before the Family Court. Family Court considering the arguments of both sides granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 from the date of - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010094182026 NC: 2026:KHC:36464 RPFC No. 35 of 2026 petition till her lifetime or till she gets remarriage and Rs.8,000/- per month to petitioner No.3 from the date of petition till she gets marriage and also her educational expenses for every academic year till completion of her education. It is stated that second respondent attained the age of majority and as such no maintenance was granted to him. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/husband preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that petitioner's marriage with respondent No.1 was performed on 11.07.1999 and they are blessed with two children aged 22 years and 19 years respectively. They lived together for 10 years. It is stated that the Family Court has not considered that petitioner and respondent No.1 were living separately from past 4 years. Petitioner was taking care of household expenses by paying electricity charges and towards household articles - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010094182026 NC: 2026:KHC:36464 RPFC No. 35 of 2026 and he himself incurred educational expenses towards his children. It is further stated that the petitioner was incurring expenditure towards payment of LIC, Professional Tax, union fee and also paying instalment of loan of Rs.21,360/-, he availed loan for Rs.8,00,000/- from the co-operative bank and after all deductions petitioner was getting Rs.12,211/- per month salary to his hands. Tribunal has not considered the loan of Rs.15,00,000/- taken by the petitioner for meeting out the educational expenses of the children and he is paying EMI for clearing the said amount. He further contended that respondent No.1 is earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month and she has also got Rs.30,00,000/- from the sale of property from her parents. The trial Court has not considered the Assets and Liability statement filed by him and erred in granting of Rs.12,000/- towards maintenance of petitioner No.1. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the judgment dated 25.09.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.48/2023. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010094182026 NC: 2026:KHC:36464 RPFC No. 35 of 2026 5. It was observed by the Family Court that they lived happily for 15 years without any disputes blessed with two children. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that her husband left the quarters and resided separately without providing any basic necessities and refused to look after them. He is working as Lineman at BESCOM, Vinayak Nagar Branch, Tumakuru and getting salary of Rs.81,549/- per month and he is capable of paying maintenance to them. He is having 5 brothers and mother is living with other brothers and she is aged 80 years. 7. Petitioner/husband further stated that both of them are residing together in the quarters and he is maintaining his wife and children and also incurring rent and other expenses, as such, question of payment of maintenance does not arise. It was contended by him that his wife was doing the work of tying flowers and preparing incense sticks and earning Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010094182026 NC: 2026:KHC:36464 RPFC No. 35 of 2026 month and respondent No.2 is also working in a mobile shop and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Apart from that she got Rs.30,00,000/- lakhs from her parents house towards her share. But he has not filed any document either to prove her occupation or income or regarding receiving of her share in the property. It is stated that petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant at BESCOM from 1998 and still he got 3 years service and getting a salary of Rs.1,20,000/- per month. 8. Though he stated that he has to incur medical expenses of his mother, it was elicited that she is getting a pension of Rs.13,000/- per month and it is sufficient for her. It was also observed by the Court that though he stated that he availed a loan of Rs.15,00,000/-, he has not filed any document to show the same and regarding payment of EMI. It was observed that second petitioner was major and he is not studying and as such he is not entitled for any educational expenses and also for maintenance. The Family Court rightly considered all the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010094182026 NC: 2026:KHC:36464 RPFC No. 35 of 2026 aspects and granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.3. Apart from that, as he is a father, he has to incur the educational expenses of the child till completion of her education. Hence, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the said order. 9. In the result, the petition is dismissed by confirming the order of the Family Court. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE NS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3