- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5868 RPFC No. 76 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.76 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI SYED NADEM S/O. SYED HABEEBULLA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O. NEAR INAM MASJID MILLATH NAGAR KOLAR TOWN-563 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI NANJUNDA GOWDA M. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. NAGHMA NAAZ W/O. SYED NADEEM D/O. SYED SALEEM PASHA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 2. BABY SYED NUMAAN S/O. SYED NADEEM AGED ABOUT 3 YEAR 2 MONTHS Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5868 RPFC No. 76 of 2024 MINOR UNDER CARE AND CUSTODY OF HIS MOTHER AS NATURAL GUARDIAN BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BESIDE MLA SRINIVAS GOWDA HOUSE C. C. WATER WORKS ROAD, SHAHINSHA NAGAR KOLAR TOWN-563 101 RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SREEDHARA G. R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2; (R-2 IS MINOR, REP. BY R-1)) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.13/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5868 RPFC No. 76 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Srinath who represents Sri.Nanjunda Gowda M.R., learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Sreedhara G.R., learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Husband against whom liability is fixed to maintain his wife and child and was ordered to pay them a sum of ₹5,000/- each per month towards maintenance has filed this revision petition. He challenges the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.13/2022 dated 28.02.2024. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has got no other source of income except earning of ₹300/- to ₹400/- per day as auto driver. Learned counsel states that the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of ₹5,000/- each to his wife and child for maintenance and the petitioner does not have financial capacity to pay such huge sum. Learned counsel - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5868 RPFC No. 76 of 2024 also states that respondent No.1 left the company of the petitioner on her own will without there being any fault on part of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that as the amount ordered to be paid as maintenance is exorbitant, the same may be reduced to certain extent. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that even ₹10,000/- granted by the tribunal towards maintenance is not sufficient for the respondents to maintain themselves. Learned counsel states that respondent No.2 is a boy aged around three years and respondent No.1 is under obligation to look after the said child and thereby she cannot earn anything. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner owns a building, he runs a shop and also maintains an auto rickshaw and thereby he has got variety sources of earnings. Learned counsel thereby states that the revision petition is not maintainable. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5868 RPFC No. 76 of 2024 5. So far as running of provision store is concerned, the petitioner who examined himself as RW1 during the course of cross-examination admitted that at the time of marriage he was running a provision store. He stated that subsequently the same was closed. He also admitted that he owned an auto rickshaw, but he claimed that he sold that vehicle. When Ex.P8 - photographs were confronted to him, he deposed that he and his parents reside in the house visible in the said photographs. However, he denied that shops found in the said photographs were let out and that he is getting rental income. But, through the point elicited in the cross- examination, what can be inferred is that the petitioner is not as poor as projected by him either before the Family Court or before this Court. At the same time, it is clear that the respondents have not produced any proof with regard to the earnings of the petitioner. Thus, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that, it would be wholly - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5868 RPFC No. 76 of 2024 justifiable if the petitioner herein is directed to pay a sum of ₹4,000/- per month to each of the respondents. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part. ii. The order rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.13/ 2022 dated 28.02.2024 is modified. iii. Petitioner/husband is directed to pay respondent No.1/wife a sum of ₹4,000/- per month towards maintenance from the date of order of the Family Court until further orders. iv. Petitioner is also directed to pay a sum of ₹4,000/- per month to respondent No.2 towards maintenance from the date of order of the Family Court till he attains the age of majority. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5868 RPFC No. 76 of 2024 v. So far as litigation expenses are concerned, the order of the Family Court is confirmed. vi. Petitioner is directed to pay all arrears within a period of two months. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37