- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6452 RPFC No. 61 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 61 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. RAGHAVENDRAKUMAR S., S/O SAMPATHSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NO 14, BOGADI VILLAGE, IN LAYOUT FORMED IN SY NO 275/18, 275/20 AND SY. NO. 263, KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU - 570026 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. TEJASWINI Y. R. W/O RAGHAVENDRAKUMAR, D/O Y.S. RAMAKANTH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 2. AKSHAJ R., Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6452 RPFC No. 61 of 2025 S/O RAGHAVENDRAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, (RESPONDENT NO.2 BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS NATURAL GUARDIAN) BOTH ARE R/AT NO 136, SHARADA PUBLIC SCHOOL, KERGALLI ROAD, R T NAGAR, MYSURU - 570026 …RESPONDENTS (RESPONDENT - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R2 MINOR REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.388/2022 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6452 RPFC No. 61 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Rupesh Kumar.S, learned counsel for the petitioner. Proof of service is on record. However, respondents did not choose to contest the matter. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.388/2022 dated 04.02.2025 respondent therein filed the present revision petition. 3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus the petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. Family Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner herein to pay respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.5,000/- and respondent No.2 a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no capacity to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6452 RPFC No. 61 of 2025 pay such huge amount as ordered by the Family Court. Respondent No.1 is a well educated lady and has got sufficient means of earnings so as to maintain herself and the child. Petitioner established his own company and maintained the said company for sometime. But due to ill health his company was closed. Without looking at the financial status of the petitioner and the earnings of respondent No.1, Family Court directed the petitioner to pay huge sum as maintenance to the respondents and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 5. Family Court at paragraph No.26 of the impugned order made a clear mention that Pw.1, i.e., respondent No.1 herein stated that she is working as teacher and she is giving home tuitions to children as on the date of giving evidence. Thus it is clear that respondent No.1 has got some means of livelihood. It is the liability of the petitioner hearing to maintain his child and he cannot contend that as respondent No.1 is earning he is not liable to pay any maintenance. No authentic - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6452 RPFC No. 61 of 2025 proof is on record that the alleged ill health of the petitioner prevents him from doing work and earn. The Family Court at paragraph No.30 of the impugned order made a mention that Rw.1 i.e., the petitioner herein categorically stated that he took personal loan from HDFC bank as well as from AXIS bank for construction of a house. Though it is the version of the petitioner that the loan amount as well as the amount payable to the insurance company is being paid by his father, as rightly observed by the Family Court at paragraph No.31 of the impugned order, the petitioner neither examined his father before the Court nor he produced any proof that his father is paying the dues. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner is unable to maintain the respondents. 6. Meager amount which respondent No.1 earns will not be sufficient for her to maintain herself and the child. At the same time this Court is of the view that the liability fixed upon the petitioner herein to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.10,000/- per month - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6452 RPFC No. 61 of 2025 to respondent No.2 as maintenance is excessive. This Court is of the view that it would be wholly justifiable if the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1 herein and Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.2 herein as maintenance. Therefore, 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 I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.No.388/2022 dated 04.02.2025 is modified. (iii) Petitioner/respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month to respondent No.1/petitioner No.1 towards maintenance from the date of the order of the Family Court till her lifetime or till the order is modified by the competent Court due to change of circumstances. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6452 RPFC No. 61 of 2025 (iv) Petitioner/respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to respondent No.2/petitioner No.2 as maintenance from the date of order of the Family Court till he attains the age of majority. (v) Other directions issued are confirmed. (vi) The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18