- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:952 RPFC No. 49 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 49 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYASHREE N., W/O SHIVAJI RAO PAWAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. SMT. DISHA S PAWAR D/O SHIVAJI RAO PAWAR AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 3. SMT. VISHAL S. PAWAR S/O SHIVAJI RAO PAWAR AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS THE PETITIONER NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN THE 1ST PETITIONER SMT. JAYASHREE N., ALL ARE R/AT NO. 408,14TH CROSS 3RD STAGE, 'B' BLOCK, VIJAYANAGARA, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:952 RPFC No. 49 of 2021 MYSURU - 570 030. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASANNA V. R.,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SHIVAJI PAWAR, S/O RANGLOLI RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KEREBEERANAHALLI VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI - 577 451. …RESPONDENT (SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23.03.2020 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.182/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125(1) AND (b) 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:952 RPFC No. 49 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Prasanna.V.R learned counsel for the petitioner. Though notice was served upon the respondent, respondent failed to represent. 2. Dissatisfied with the sum that is awarded as maintenance by the III Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru through orders in C.Misc.No.182/2017 dated 23.03.2020, the present revision petition is filed. 3. Making his submission with regard to the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the respondent. Respondent neglected to maintain the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 started looking after the welfare of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 through the support given by her father. Respondent is an agriculturalist and he owns landed property. Petitioner No.1 is unable to look after petitioner Nos.2 and 3 with the meager amount that is awarded towards maintenance in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:952 RPFC No. 49 of 2021 their favour. Also the sum that is awarded towards maintenance of petitioner No.1 is meagre and hence, present revision petition is filed. 4. The version of the petitioners is that the respondent is an agriculturist and he owns agricultural lands. Admittedly, no proof was produced before the trial Court by the petitioners to show the extent of land which the respondent owns and the earnings of the respondent through agriculture. It is not in dispute that petitioner No.1 holds a master's degree and also a doctorate. But petitioner No.1 contends that she is not doing any job. The Tribunal granted a sum of ₹5,000/- per month towards maintenance of petitioner No.1, ₹2,500/- per month in favour of petitioner No.2 till she completes the age of 15 years and thereafter ₹4,000/- per month till her marriage, ₹2,500/- per month in favour of petitioner No.3 till he completes the age of 12 years and thereafter ₹4,000/- per month till he attains the age of majority. The amount thus awarded in the opinion of this Court is highly justifiable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:952 RPFC No. 49 of 2021 The trial Court taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case awarded justifiable sum towards maintenance. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds whatsoever to interfere with the findings given by the trial Court. Thus, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61