- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1602 RPFC No. 176 of 2019 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. 176 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHWETHA C., W/O GOPALAKRISHNA K. B. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. YASHAS G., S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA K. B., AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER BOTH ARE NOW RESIDNG AT: 3RD CROSS, SANJEEVINI NILAYA SIDDARAMESHWARA EXTENSION, BATAWADI, TUMKURU CITY-572 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1602 RPFC No. 176 of 2019 AND: SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA K. B., S/O BABANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADHAVANAGAR, B H ROAD, GOWRIBIDANUR TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SUSHMITHA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJENDRA K.R., ADVOCATE ) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.03.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.49/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE THE PETITIONER IS PREFERRING THIS RPFC IN SO FOR AS IT RELATES TO THE REJECTION OF THE PRAYER OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED FOR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1602 RPFC No. 176 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.P.Dhananjaya who represents Sri.Hanumantharayappa.K learned counsel on record for the petitioners as well as Ms.Sushmitha.K who represents Sri.Rajendra.K.R learned counsel on record for the respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in C.Misc.No.49/2015 dated 29.03.2019, the present revision petition is filed. 3. There is no denial of the fact that the first petitioner is the wife and the second petitioner is the son of the respondent herein. By the material that is brought on record, it is clear that the petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the respondent. The trial Court subjecting the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, RWs.1 & 2, Exs.P1 to P9 and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1602 RPFC No. 176 of 2019 Exs.R1 to R6 to scrutiny held that the second petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance from the respondent till he attains the age of majority. The Court dismissed the application so far as the first petitioner is concerned. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed rejecting maintenance to the first petitioner. Learned counsel states that the respondent is an employee earning huge sum and therefore, he is under obligation to maintain first petitioner who is his wife. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that the first petitioner is an employee. Learned counsel also states that the respondent lost his employment and therefore, he has no sources of income. 6. No details whatsoever were furnished by the respondent to establish the fact that he lost his job and the date when he either resigned or his employer - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1602 RPFC No. 176 of 2019 terminated his services. However, the fact that the first petitioner is working in a School is brought on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that though the first petitioner is working she is getting meagre amount as salary. At para 27 of the impugned order trial Court observed that the respondent addressed a letter under Right to Information Act to get salary particulars of the first petitioner, but same were not furnished to him and therefore, the salary slip and job details of the first petitioner were summoned and as per the particulars received, the first petitioner is working at Varin International School and she is getting Rs.15,890/- per month as salary. Thus, it is clear that the first petitioner is a working woman earning around Rs.15,000/- per month as salary. Therefore, it cannot be held that the first petitioner has no sources of earning or that her income is not sufficient to maintain herself. The Court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance of the second petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1602 RPFC No. 176 of 2019 8. Therefore, the first petitioner will have no financial burden sofaras the second petitioner is concerned. Thus, her earnings will be sufficient to maintain herself. Hence, this Court is of the view that the trial Court did not err in taking a decision that the first petitioner is not entitled for any sum from the respondent towards maintenance. 9. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the revision petition lacks merits. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28