- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1895 RPFC No. 181 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 181 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HEMALATHA, W/O SRI RAGHAVENDRA PRADAD V AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, 2. MAST HRUDAY R., S/O SRI RAGHAVENDRA PRADAD V AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, THE PETITIONER NO.2 BEING A MINOR IS REPRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 BEING THE NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER, BOTH ARE R/AT NO.2312, III STAGE, D BLOCK, KANAKADASA NAGARA, NETHAJI CIRCLE, DATTAGALLI, MYSORE-570013. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1895 RPFC No. 181 of 2023 AND: SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PRASAD V., S/O. SRI. VENKATACHALA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MADRAS SAPPER HQ MEG AND CENTRE, EIC BRANCH, SHIVAN SHETTY, GARDEN POST, BENGALURU-560042. &RESPONDENT (BY SMT. THEJESWINI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HIREMATH PRAVEEN KUMAR APPAYYA, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2.01.2020 PASSED ON C.MIS NO.637/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, REJECTING THE PETITION AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION AS AGAINST PETITIONER NO.2 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:1895 RPFC No. 181 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.K.Srihari learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms.Thejeswini who represents Sri.Hiremath Praveen Kumar Appayya learned counsel on record for the respondent. 2. Seeking to set aside the order that is rendered by the II Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru, in C.Misc.No.637/2018 dated 02.01.2020, the present revision petition is filed. 3. The petitioners herein filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent seeking a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month towards maintenance. The Court through the impugned order rejected the claim of the first petitioner. The Court directed the respondent to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per month to the second petitioner from the date of petition till he attains the age of 15 years granting liberty to the second petitioner to file one more petition seeking maintenance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1895 RPFC No. 181 of 2023 on attaining the age of 15 years. The respondent was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the first petitioner towards the amount which the first petitioner had already spent for the welfare of the second petitioner. 4. Arguing the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court failed to award any maintenance in favour of the first petitioner only on the ground that she is an employee. Learned counsel states that out of her earnings, the first petitioner has to look after her aged mother as well as the second petitioner and therefore, her income is not sufficient. Learned counsel thereby seeks to award the amount claimed towards maintenance by the first petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel who represents the respondent states that the petitioners are living in the ancestral house, which the first petitioner inherited from her parents. Learned counsel also states that the first petitioner is an employee and therefore, she can eek out - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1895 RPFC No. 181 of 2023 her livelihood. As maintenance is awarded in favour of second petitioner, she need not spend any amount from her salary for the welfare of the second petitioner. Thus, the trial Court rightly rejected the claim of the first petitioner and hence, the present revision petition is not maintainable. 6. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner is working as typist at District Court, Ramanagara. Equally it is not in dispute that the respondent is working as clerk in Indian Army. By the evidence produced, it is also clear that take home salary of the first petitioner is around Rs.20,000/- and the respondent is drawing salary of Rs.41,000/- approximately. Through the impugned order, the Court directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month towards maintenance of the second petitioner. Therefore, as rightly contented, the first petitioner will have no obligation to spend any amount out of her earnings for the welfare of the second petitioner. Thus, her salary of Rs.20,000/- in the opinion of this Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1895 RPFC No. 181 of 2023 is sufficient to maintain herself. No evidence is produced to show that the mother of the first petitioner has got no sources of earnings and that she is solely depending upon the first petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal did not err in holding that the first petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent. Equally, having considered the financial status of the respondent, the sum that is awarded as maintenance to the second petitioner is justifiable. Therefore, this Court 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