- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.58 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. C. MANJULA @ MANJAMMA WIFE OF SRI S. R. CHIKKASWAMY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2. T. C. ROHINI D/O. S. R. CHIKKASWAMY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT LAKSHMINARASIMHASWAMY TEMPLE MAIN ROAD 6TH CROSS, KUNIGAL ROAD SADASHIVANAGARA TUMKUR-572 102 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI FAYAZ SAB B. G., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S. R. CHIKKASWAMY SON OF RANGAIAH Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT OPPOSITE BEERALINGESHWARA TEMPLE VEERASAGARA TUMAKURU CITY-572 102 ALSO RESIDING AT SANGAPURA VILLAGE HEBBUR POST HEBBUR HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 123 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI BIKKANNAVAR SHANKAR TAMMANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.01.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.122/2024 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 127 OF CR.P.C. FOR ENHANCEMENT OF 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:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Fayaz Sab.B.G, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Bikkannavar Shankar Tammanna, learned counsel for the respondent. Gone through the contents of the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondent. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.122/2024 dated 07.01.2025. 3. The flow of events as could be perceived through the material that is available on record is that the first petitioner who is the wife, the second petitioner who is the daughter and also the son of the first petitioner filed a petition against the respondent herein who is none other than the husband of the first petitioner for maintenance. A sum of Rs.3,000/- per month was granted towards maintenance of the first petitioner and a sum of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 Rs.1,000/- each to the children from the date of filing of the petition till the date of order and thereafter Rs.6,000/- per month in favour of first petitioner and Rs.3,000/- each to the children. Against the order thus passed, a revision petition was filed vide RPFC No.180/2015. The said revision petition was disposed of enhancing the maintenance to be payable by the respondent to the first petitioner to Rs.15,000/- and to Rs.10,000/- so far as second petitioner is concerned. Subsequently, these petitioners filed Crl.Misc.No.122/2024 under Section 127 Cr.P.C seeking enhancement. The first petitioner claimed Rs.50,000/- per month towards maintenance and second petitioner Rs.40,000/-. The Family Court, Tumakuru through the impugned order directed the respondent to pay first petitioner a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month and the second petitioner a sum of Rs.13,000/- per month as maintenance. Projecting that they are entitled to the sum claimed, the present revision petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second petitioner is studying MBA and she requires huge sum to meet her educational requirements. Respondent is earning Rs.1,84,000/- per month and therefore, he has got sufficient financial capacity to pay the amount claimed. Without looking at the status of the parties and the salary of the respondent, the Court enhanced the compensation marginally and therefore, the present revision petition is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the revision petition and award the sum claimed towards maintenance. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent states that the petitioners are living in the house that was built by the respondent herein. The first petitioner necked the respondent out of the house, occupied the same and started living in one portion of the house by letting the other portion on rent. She is getting rent of Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that to clear the arrears of maintenance which fell due, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 respondent took loan and therefore, he has to pay the installments for clearing the said loan. Learned counsel also states that the second petitioner is working and she is earning and therefore, the version that she is depending upon the respondent is false. 6. Petitioners failed to produce any substantive proof to show that they are residing in a rented premises. Equally respondent failed to establish that he raised loan to an extent of Rs.13,00,000/- and that he is under obligation to clear the same. Petitioners failed to produce any evidence to show that the second petitioner require a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- per year to meet her educational expenses. 7. When a party seeks certain relief, it is for the said party to produce cogent and convincing evidence to establish that the relief claimed is justifiable and that he/she is entitled for the said relief. But in the case on hand except producing the salary slip of the respondent, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 petitioners failed to establish that they have a genuine case of seeking huge sum as maintenance. The Court taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/- towards maintenance to the first petitioner and Rs.13,000/- to the second petitioner. But perceiving the fact that the father is earning around Rs.1,84,000/- per month, his daughter will certainly be entitled to a reasonable amount to meet her day to day necessities including her clothing and educational expenses. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the maintenance granted in favour of the second petitioner i.e., Rs.13,000/- is required to be enhanced. This Court is of the view that the second petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards maintenance till her marriage. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) Revision petition is allowed-in-part. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3100 RPFC No. 58 of 2025 (ii) Maintenance granted in favour of petitioner No.2 i.e., Rs.13,000/- per month through the impugned order is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month. (iii) The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63