- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:478 RPFC No. 16 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 16 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SANTHOSH L SUVARNA AGED 49 YEARS, S/O LAXMAN S. SUVARNA R/AT DOOR NO.7-64 LAXMI NIVASA, YERMAL TENKA YERMAL UDUPI - 574 119 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHWETHA SUVARNA W/O SANTHOSH L SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. BABY SANVI S SUVARNA D/O SANTOSH SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS 3. BABY SADVI S SURAVNA Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:478 RPFC No. 16 of 2024 D/O SANTOSH SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SMT. SHWETHA SUVARNA ALL ARE R/AT 12-3G, SHWETHA NIVASA NEAR JAYANAGAR 1ST CROSS, THADAMBAIL SURATHKAL MANGALORE - 575 014 …RESPONDENTS (R1 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R16) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.51/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:478 RPFC No. 16 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Trivikram.S learned counsel for the revision petitioner who appears through video conference. 2. Though notice was served upon the respondents, respondents did not choose to contest the matter. 3. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crl.Misc.Case No.51/2020 dated 21.02.2022. 4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. Respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs.70,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-. The Court which dealt with the case rendered orders holding that 1st respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and respondent Nos.2 and 3 Rs.20,000/- per month each towards maintenance and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:478 RPFC No. 16 of 2024 they are also entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, the present revision petition is filed. 6. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is earning not more than Rs.80,000/- per annum and hence he is unable to pay the amount as ordered by the Trial Court towards maintenance. Learned counsel submits that the income certificate issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka is being produced and considering the said certificate, the impugned order may be modified by decreasing the amount that is awarded as maintenance. 7. The case of the respondents as projected before the Trial Court is that the revision petitioner was employed as a Marketing Executive at Muscat and he failed to look after their welfare and there by neglected them. Their case is also that the revision petitioner is working at I.T. Corporate Solutions at Bengaluru as Project Manager and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:478 RPFC No. 16 of 2024 he is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month and further he is having moveable and immovable properties worth more than Rs.50,00,000/- at Yermal, Udupi. 8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly concedes that the revision petitioner failed to file the statement of assets and liabilities before the Trial Court. He also concedes that the revision petitioner even failed to file his objections or counter to the petition filed by the respondents herein claiming maintenance. He also states that the revision petitioner failed to cross examine PW-1. Thus, it is clear that the revision petitioner failed to contest the matter though made his appears before the Trial Court. No reasons accorded as to why the revision petitioner did not choose to file his objections and statement of asset and liabilities. Also the evidence of PW- 1 remains unchallenged. 9. Though a certificate alleged to have been issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka is produced before this Court on this day, the said certificate - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:478 RPFC No. 16 of 2024 is a photostat copy and its genuineness is not established. Also no reason is accorded as to why the revision petitioner failed to produce the said certificate before the Trial Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the photostat copy of the certificate now produced cannot be taken into consideration. Equally, this Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the tribunal. Thus, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that the revision petition deserves dismissal. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. The proceedings in pending interlocutory application stand closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37