- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6059 RPFC No. 157 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.157 OF 2023 BETWEEN: KANTHARAJU SON OF LATE NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OCCUPATION: NOT WORKING R/O. VITTARAVUTHANAHALLI AREGUJJANAHALLI POST, URDGERE HOBLI TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 140 …PETITIONER (BY SRI GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR; SRI S. V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SURESHA S/O. KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN-KAMALAMMA Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6059 RPFC No. 157 of 2023 2. KAMALAMMA W/O. KANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 ARE RESIDING AT VITTARAVUTHANAHALLI AREGUJJANAHALLI POST URDGERE HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 140 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SURENDRA Y. S., ADVOCATE, (ABSENT)) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.04.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.47/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD IN ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6059 RPFC No. 157 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Guruprasad Hegde who represents Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel on record for the petitioner on 27.01.2026. There was no representation on respondents' side on that day. To give fair opportunity the matter was adjourned so as to facilitate the respondents to make their submission on the merits of the matter. However, even on this day there is no representation on respondents' side. 2. This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.47/2020 dated 25.04.2023. The second respondent herein claiming herself to be the wife and the first respondent herein claiming himself to be the son of the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking the Court to direct the petitioner here in to pay them a sum of Rs.10,000/- each per month towards maintenance. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6059 RPFC No. 157 of 2023 Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner here in to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.2 as maintenance from the date of petition during her lifetime or till she remarries. The Court also directed the petitioner herein to pay respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance from the date of petition till he attains the age of majority. 3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither respondent No.2 is the wife nor respondent No.1 the son of the petitioner. Respondents are strangers to the petitioner. They made a false claim. The Court entertaining their claim directed the petitioner to pay huge sum as maintenance. Learned counsel also states that respondent No.1 attained the age of majority and therefore, the grievance of the petitioner as of now is only in respect of the order passed by the Court directing him to pay maintenance to respondent No.2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is visually disabled and he himself is depending on others - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6059 RPFC No. 157 of 2023 and therefore, he cannot pay any amount to respondent No.2 as maintenance. 4. Negating a plea taken by the petitioner herein that respondent No.1 is not his son and respondent No.2 is not his wife, the Court directed the petitioner to pay maintenance to the respondents as ordered. Respondents to establish their version and relationship with the petitioner produced Ex.P9 - SSLC Marks Card pertaining to respondent No.1 herein, Ex.P10 - Birth Certificate pertaining to respondent No.1 herein, Ex. P11 and Ex.P12 - Aadhar cards and Ex.P13 to Ex.P15 - photographs. 5. By all the evidence produced, it is clear that the petitioner married one Lakshmidevamma and thereafter married respondent No.2 herein. Apart from the documents referred supra, respondents have also brought to the notice of the Court that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner herein by respondent No.2 herein that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment and in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6059 RPFC No. 157 of 2023 the said case, police filed charge sheet and finally the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Having considered the facts of the case and also subjecting Ex.P13- photograph to consideration where the petitioner herein is found driving a tractor and defence taken by him that he was going to coolie work in the tractor, the Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner herein is an able-bodied person and that he is liable to maintain the respondents. 6. As per the submission that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 attained the age of majority. Therefore, as per the impugned order, the petitioner is not under obligation to pay anything as maintenance to respondent No.1 from the date he attained the age of majority. Therefore, the petitioner will be under obligation to pay maintenance as ordered by the Court to respondent No.2 only. This Court is of the view that a sum of Rs.6,000/- granted towards maintenance per month in favour of respondent No.2 to be payable by the petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6059 RPFC No. 157 of 2023 is not exorbitant. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that there are no grounds to allow this revision petition. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19