- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.96 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI N. H. RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY S/O. LATE SRI HUCHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SUNRISE SPORTS AND WEARS R/AT NO.3/A, NEW KANTHARAJA URS ROAD KUVEMPUNAGAR MYSURU-570 023 …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHENDRA G., ADVOCATE FOR; SRI SHARATH J. M., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. N. R. PAVITHRA W/O. N. H. RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 D/O. SRI RENUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.2351, 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, NEAR SRI SIDDAPPAJI TEMPLE K. G. KOPPALU MYSURU-583 231 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2021 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.465/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDGE, II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, C/C OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 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:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Mahendra.G learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms.Bhushani Kumar learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Mysuru in C.Mis.No.465/2020 dated 29.04.2021. 3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus, the revision petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein. Therefore, for the sake of convenience of discussion parties to the proceedings will hereinafter be referred to as husband and wife. 4. Wife filed a petition i.e., C.Mis.No.465/2020 seeking the Court to direct her husband to pay maintenance of Rs.50,000/- per month apart from Rs.1,00,000/- towards litigation charges. Family Court, through the impugned order, directed the husband to pay - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 his wife a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, husband filed the present revision petition. 5. The version of the wife as borne by record is that while she was a minor, her husband induced her to fall in love with him, thereafter kidnapped her and both of them stayed together for 10 days at the friend's house of her husband and later got married in a temple. Her father lodged complaint before police and subsequently, her husband handed over her to her parents. Her husband started to work at Sri Manjunatha Plywood and Hardware Factory and during that time her parents arranged a house for them and provided all household articles and after she attained the age of majority their marriage was got registered. Her father took a commercial building on lease and there her husband started his business under the name and style of 'Sunrise Sports'. In the meantime, she fell ill and underwent a surgery. At that time she engaged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 one servant by name Savitha. But her husband started maintaining illicit intimacy with the said Savitha and later the said Savitha was made one of the partners in the business of her husband. Finally, her husband and the said Savitha assaulted her and threw her out of the house. She also contended that she has no source of livelihood and on the other hand, her husband by running 3 shops in Mysuru under the name and style 'Sunrise Sports and Wears' is earning Rs.5,00,000/- per month. 6. Making his submission on the merits of the matter, learned counsel who represents the respondent contends that in the petition filed by the wife seeking maintenance, the Family Court failed to give an opportunity to his client to file his objections and his statement of assets and liabilities. Learned counsel contends that a child was born out of the wedlock and the said child is being looked after by his client only. Learned counsel submits that earnings of his client is not more than Rs.65,000/- to Rs.70,000/- per month and therefore, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 he cannot pay huge sum of Rs.25,000/- per month as maintenance. Learned counsel seeks the Court thereby to dismiss the revision petition. 7. Contradicting the submission thus made, learned counsel who represents the wife contends that on the directions given by this Court, both parties filed their assets and liabilities. The statement of assets and liabilities filed by the husband is full of lies and misleading particulars. Learned counsel submits that in the statement of assets and liabilities filed by the husband, at column No.F he has shown that as proprietor of 'Sunrise Sports' his monthly earning was Rs.70,836/- for the financial year 2020-2021. However, at column No.H, he states that he is paying rent of Rs.80,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that a person earning Rs.70,000/- per month under no stretch of imagination can be expected to pay rent of Rs.80,000/- per month and thus, it is clear that the particulars furnished by him in his statement of assets and liabilities are all lies. Learned counsel also states that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 numbers of opportunities were given to the husband to file his statement of objection. But he did not turn up. Likewise, he did not choose to appear before the Court at any stage. Learned counsel also states that having considered the cogent and convincing evidence produced by the wife, the Court directed the husband to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month and therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable. 8. During the course of submission, learned counsel who appears for the wife also submitted that husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage through a decree of divorce. But the same was dismissed. Learned counsel submits that the wife on the other had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was allowed. 9. Learned counsel who represents the husband did not deny the fact of dismissal of petition filed by the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 husband for decree of divorce and honouring the request of the wife for restitution of conjugal rights. 10. Undisputedly, the husband is the proprietor of 'Sunrise Sports'. Though the husband has taken a plea that he is under obligation to maintain his son, no material is on record to show that the wife has got her own sources of income. There is no denial of the fact that there was proper service of notice upon the husband by the Family Court and that the husband upon service of notice, appeared through his counsel. No convincing reason is given as to why he did not choose to file his statement of objections. 11. After going through the contents of the impugned order and also perceiving the fact that though the child attained the age of majority, that he is still depending upon his father and that the child is residing with the father and thus, an obligation is cast upon the husband to look after his son and also upon perusing the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 statement of assets and liabilities filed by both parties before this Court, this Court is of the view that the amount granted towards maintenance in favour of the wife i.e., Rs.25,000/- is slightly exorbitant. This Court is of the view that in case the husband is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards maintenance, it will be justiciable. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed in part. (ii) The amount that is awarded towards maintenance of the wife to be payable by her husband through the orders of the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in C.Mis.No.465/2020 dated 29.04.2021 is reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2592 RPFC No. 96 of 2021 (iii) All other directions given by the Family Court through the operative portion of the impugned order holds good. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35