- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181712025 NC: 2026:KHC:39583 RPFC No. 75 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.75 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI R. PRASHANTH S/O. LATE M. P. RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O.NO.27, 3RD CROSS SPOORTHI LAYOUT ANDRAHALLI MAIN ROAD HEROHALLI, VISHWANEEDAM POST BENGALURU-560 009 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NIRMALA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. GEETHA J. D/O. JAYARAMA RAO P.S. W/O. PRASHANTH R. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. NO.82/1, 'MALLIKARJUN NILAYA' HOSAMANE EXTENSION NEAR WATER TANK I. B. SHANKAR HOUSE CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SIDDHARTHA H. V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181712025 NC: 2026:KHC:39583 RPFC No. 75 of 2025 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2024 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.75/2023 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU., PARTY 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 ORAL ORDER Heard Smt.Nirmala Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Sri.Siddhartha.H.V who represents Sri.A.Madhusudhan Rao, learned counsel on record for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc.No.75/2023 dated 14.11.2024. Respondent/wife filed a petition invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C claiming a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month from the petitioner/husband towards her maintenance. Family Court through the impugned order - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181712025 NC: 2026:KHC:39583 RPFC No. 75 of 2025 directed petitioner/husband to pay respondent/wife a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance, to be enhanced at the rate of 5% annually. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, this revision petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the adamant attitude of respondent/wife resulted in separation. Learned counsel also states that petitioner works in a cycle shop as mechanic and he earns around Rs.15,000/- per month. Petitioner is under obligation to look after his aged mother. Without considering the financial status of the petitioner, Family Court directed petitioner to pay respondent a huge sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders. 4. Learned counsel who represents the respondent on the other hand states that petitioner earns a sum of Rs.30,000/- per month. Respondent studied up to 10th standard and she has no source of income. Respondent - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181712025 NC: 2026:KHC:39583 RPFC No. 75 of 2025 requires at least a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards maintenance and thus this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the statement of assets and liabilities, petitioner mentioned that he works as mechanic in a cycle shop. However, surprisingly he has shown his monthly income as Nil. Respondent though projected that petitioner works as an executive in one Supreme Company, Bengaluru and earns Rs.30,000/- per month, she failed to produce any substantive proof to that effect. Family Court at paragraph No.18 of the impugned order made a mention that it has to do guesswork in estimating the income as the sources of income are not disclosed. Having taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.25,000/- per month, ordered petitioner to pay respondent a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. Petitioner in his statement of assets and liabilities mentioned his educational qualification as ITI Diploma. As earlier mentioned, he has disclosed his occupation as mechanic in - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181712025 NC: 2026:KHC:39583 RPFC No. 75 of 2025 a cycle shop. Having considered the educational qualification and the occupation as submitted by the petitioner himself, his monthly income as rightly assessed by the Family Court can be taken as Rs.25,000/- per month. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner has to maintain his mother also. Thus out of Rs.25,000/- if Rs.10,000/- is paid to the respondent/wife towards maintenance, it will be very difficult for the petitioner to maintain himself and his aged mother out of the leftover sum i.e., Rs.15,000/-. Hence, in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that petitioner can only be ordered to pay respondent a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month towards her maintenance. Thus the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010181712025 NC: 2026:KHC:39583 RPFC No. 75 of 2025 Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc.No.75/2023 dated 14.11.2024 is modified. (iii) Petitioner/husband is directed to pay respondent/wife a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month towards her maintenance. (iv) Such amount shall be paid from the date of filing of Crl.Misc.No.75/2023 till the lifetime of respondent/wife or until the same is modified by the competent Court. (v) Order relating to payment of costs and enhancement of the sum by 5% annually shall remain in force. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33