- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1797 RPFC No. 153 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 153 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA D. R., SRI BANDE RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. ASST. ENGINEER (ELECT) KPTCL, HALAVAGILU, HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. DAVANAGERE-583 131. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SHOBHA, W/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA D R, D/O T. THAMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O 60 ROAD, 3RD CROSS, 1ST STAGE, VINOBHANAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.02.2020 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.252/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE. Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1797 RPFC No. 153 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Shivayogesh, who represents Ms.Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.Guruprasad Hegde, who represents Sri.S.V. Prakash, learned counsel on record for the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the sum that is awarded as maintenance in favour of the respondent and her child, the present revision petition is filed. The revision petitioner who is the husband of the respondent challenges the order that is rendered by the Family Court, Shivamogga, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.252/2016 dated 07.02.2020. 3. Before entering into the arena of the case, one thing to be made clear is that the respondent though claimed maintenance for her and her child, did not array her child as party to the proceedings. The Court through - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1797 RPFC No. 153 of 2020 the impugned order directed the revision petitioner to pay maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month to the respondent during her life time and to his daughter till her marriage. 4. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Court granted huge sum of ₹20,000/- per month towards maintenance and the petitioner is unable to pay such huge amount and therefore the impugned order may be modified reducing the quantum of amount that is granted towards maintenance. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer and thus has got permanent source of earnings and he being a Government servant can pay a sum of ₹20,000/- per month to the respondent and their child. 6. It is not in dispute that the parties are living separately due to the disputes that arose between them and the child is in the custody of the respondent. Equally it - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1797 RPFC No. 153 of 2020 is not in dispute that the revision petitioner is a Government servant. As per the version of the respondent, the revision petitioner developed extra marital affair with one woman by name Rupa and they gave birth to two children also. The respondent tried to establish the same through Exs.P16 and P17. Admittedly in Exs.P16 and P17 - Birth Certificates, the name of the father of the children is shown as Virupakshappa D.R. However, the revision petitioner denies the paternity. [ 7. The undisputable fact is that the revision petitioner has got sufficient income to maintain the respondent and the child. The salary particulars of the revision petitioner and his admission during the course of cross-examination when he was examined as RW.1 were taken into account by the trial Court and the trial Court thereby held that the respondent and the child are entitled to maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order of the trial Court and the findings given. The findings - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1797 RPFC No. 153 of 2020 given are based on total analysis of the facts and the evidence produced. Thus, ultimately this Court holds that there are no merits in the revision petition. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52