- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010588532025 NC: 2026:KHC:42235 RPFC No. 251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 251 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SIR.B.C.MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE. CHANDRANAIKA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O JANANI NILAYA, 2ND STAGE, TEACHERS BADAVANE, DAVARAGERE, DAVANAGERE- 577003. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KUM.SHRAVANI AGED 19 YEARS, 2. KUMARA SHASHANK, AGED 12 YEARS, BOTH RESPONDENTS ARE R/O JAYADEVA NILAYA, D.NO. 1675/B2/8, LENIN NAGAR, DAVANAGERE-577003. SINCE R-2 MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND, MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. NIRMALA W/O B.C.MANJUNATHA. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010588532025 NC: 2026:KHC:42235 RPFC No. 251 of 2025 (BY SRI. G.J.SUNKAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- MINOR REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12.08.2025 PASSED IN CRI.MISC NO.277/2021 ON THE FILE OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 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.Sowmya.R, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.G.J.Sunkapur, learned counsel for respondents. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Family Court, Davanagere in Crl.Misc.No.277/2021 dated 12.08.2025. 3. Daughter and son of the petitioner who are the respondents herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. Through the impugned order Family Court, Davanagere directed petitioner/father to pay - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010588532025 NC: 2026:KHC:42235 RPFC No. 251 of 2025 respondent No.1/daughter a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month from the date of filing of petition till her marriage and Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.2/son from the date of filing of petition till he attains the age of majority. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that mother of respondents is a staff nurse and she earns around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Her income is sufficient to maintain the respondents. The revision petitioner is a Police Constable and he earns around Rs.60,000/- per month. Petitioner is spending a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- per annum for the welfare of respondents. Thus directing the petitioner to pay respondents maintenance again is unjustifiable and therefore, this revision petition is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that except Ex.R2, petitioner has - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010588532025 NC: 2026:KHC:42235 RPFC No. 251 of 2025 not produced any proof with regard to the amount he spent or is spending for the welfare of respondents. Learned counsel states that it is the duty of the petitioner/father to maintain the respondents and therefore, this revision petition is not maintainable. 6. By all the material produced it is clear that petitioner/father is a Police Constable who earns around Rs.60,000/- per month and the mother of respondents works as staff nurse and she earns around Rs.40,000/- per month. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mother of respondents earns around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Even if said contention is taken to be true, obligation vests upon the petitioner as well to look after the welfare of respondents who are none other than his children and to spend some amount for their maintenance. The petitioner on the ground that he has to look after his mother and that the children can be maintained by their mother, tries to avoid liability to maintain the respondents. As rightly contended by learned - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010588532025 NC: 2026:KHC:42235 RPFC No. 251 of 2025 counsel for respondents, except Ex.R2 there is no other material to show that the petitioner is supporting respondents financially. Considering the income of the parties, the Family Court directed petitioner to pay respondent No.1/daughter a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and respondent No.2/son a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Thus this Court does not find any infirmity in the findings given. The only modification that is required is that petitioner shall pay maintenance to respondent No.1/daughter till she becomes financially independent or till her marriage whichever is earlier. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER The order that is rendered by the Family Court, Davanagere in Crl.Misc.No.277/2021 dated 12.08.2025 is confirmed however with following modification: (i) The amount that is liable to be paid by petitioner herein to respondent - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010588532025 NC: 2026:KHC:42235 RPFC No. 251 of 2025 No.1/daughter shall be paid from the date of petition till her marriage or till she becomes financially independent whichever is earlier. (ii) The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. (iii) Time for 4 months is granted to the petitioner to clear all arrears. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26