- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5175 RPFC No. 146 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.146 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHASHI KUMAR S/O. G. L. RAMU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 2. SMT. LEELAVATHI W/O. SRI SHASHI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1/9 KORAMANGALA ROAD BENGALURU-560 030 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI G. L. RAMU S/O. LATE SRI LAKKANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5175 RPFC No. 146 of 2024 2. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O. G. L. RAMU AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1/9 KORAMANGALA ROAD AUDUGODI BENGALURU-560 030 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ASHOK PATIL B., ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2024 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.483/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5175 RPFC No. 146 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Gaurav Subramanyam learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Ashok Patil.B learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by the order rendered by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.483/2016 dated 04.01.2024, respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein filed the present revision petition. The undisputed facts of the case are as under: (a) First respondent is the husband of the second respondent herein. (b) First petitioner is the husband of second petitioner herein. (c) Respondents herein are the parents of first petitioner and thereby in-laws of second petitioner. (d) Respondent No.1 is aged around 88 years and respondent No.2 is aged around 73 years as on the date of filing of revision petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5175 RPFC No. 146 of 2024 (e) Respondents herein initially filed petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from petitioners herein, their elder son, their younger son and the wife of their younger son. (f) During the course of proceedings, the matter was referred for Mediation and as per the settlement arrived at between the claimants i.e., respondents herein and their elder son, younger son and wife of their younger son who were arrayed as respondent Nos.1, 4 and 5 in the Criminal Miscellaneous case, the proceedings came to be closed against them. 3. The version of respondents (hereinafter be referred to as the claimants for the sake of convenience of discussion) is that they transferred their entire immovable property in the names of their children and their wives and executed gift deeds by retaining a house in which they are residing, but after effecting such transfer of property, they started neglecting them. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that first petitioner is the second son and second petitioner is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5175 RPFC No. 146 of 2024 his wife. Learned counsel states that not only to the petitioners but to other children also property was transferred by the claimants. In the light of settlement arrived at with other children, the claimants continued the proceedings against the petitioners herein only and the Court without appreciating the fact that other children also are equally liable to maintain the claimants who are their parents, directed petitioners herein to pay the claimants a sum of Rs.5,000/- each per month towards maintenance. 5. Per contra, the submission of learned counsel for the claimants is that the claimants who are aged persons are suffering with different kind of ailments and the pension which claimant No.1 receives is not sufficient for them to attend all their necessities. Learned counsel also states that having received huge property from the claimants, now petitioners dispute their liability to maintain them which is unjustifiable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5175 RPFC No. 146 of 2024 6. It is not in dispute that a gift deed was executed by claimant No.1 who is respondent No.1 herein in favour of petitioners herein. Equally, it is not in dispute that petitioners herein raised loan and constructed a building. 7. The only point highlighted and raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that other children of the claimants are also equally liable to maintain the claimants and therefore, fastening liability upon one son and daughter-in-law is unjustifiable. By all the material that is brought on record, it is clear that the claimants out of their earnings raised their sons, looked after their welfare, acquired properties for their future and ultimately gifted those properties to them. Having received the property, now petitioners dispute their liability to maintain their parents. 8. Taking into consideration the fact that claimant No.1 receives pension that they have got a place to reside - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5175 RPFC No. 146 of 2024 and that they are getting medical facilities also, the Court through the impugned order directed petitioners herein to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- only to each of the claimants. Petitioners having accepted the gift and enjoying the gifted property now cannot dispute their liability to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the claimants. The order of the Family Court is valid in all aspects. This Court does not find any grounds whatsoever to interfere. Therefore, this Court concludes that there are no merits in the revision petition. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9