- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5472 RPFC No. 160 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 160 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI AMARESH REDDY S/O. LATE NARASIMHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DODAMALADODDI(V) SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, DISTRICT KOLAR-563135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NITHYASHREE @ HANSIKA-RAKSHA A D/O. AMARESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 2. NARASIMHA REDDY @ VIJAY VIKAS A. S/O. AMARESH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5472 RPFC No. 160 of 2024 RESPONDENTS ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER GUARDIAN, SMT. GEETHA N. RESPONDENTS ARE RESIDING AT GAJALADINNE, VILLAGE, K.N.S.POST, THOTADAMANE KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2024 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.129/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 127 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5472 RPFC No. 160 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Hegde Ramakrishna S., learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.Devaraja A., learned counsel for respondents. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.129/2022 dated 24.06.2024. 3. Respondents herein being the children of the petitioner and minors filed a petition under Section 127 Cr.P.C seeking the Court to enhance the maintenance granted in their favour from ₹1,000/- to ₹10,000/- per month each. The Court through the impugned order enhanced the same to ₹5,000/- per month each. Aggrieved by the same, father is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/father submits that the petitioner is a physically challenged person and he has no source of earning whatsoever and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5472 RPFC No. 160 of 2024 he himself is depending on others and therefore the order rendered by the Court directing him to pay huge sum of ₹5,000/- per month to each of the respondents is unjust. Learned counsel also states that the mother of the respondents has got her own source of earning and she is running a Tiffin stall. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents states that it is the liability of the father to maintain the children and the mother is paying ₹30,000/- to ₹35,000/- per annum towards educational expenses of each child. Learned counsel also states that the first respondent who is their daughter is studying B.Tech first year and the second respondent who is their son is in 10th Standard. 6. By all the material that is produced, it is clear that the petitioner owns agricultural land where he raised mango trees. However, no material is on record to show that the petitioner earns ₹8,00,000/- per annum through the said land as contended by the respondents. Equally - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5472 RPFC No. 160 of 2024 though the petitioner projects that he is permanently and completely disabled, he has not examined any doctor who assessed the disability to establish his version. As the petitioner is in possession of agricultural land and as the defence taken that he is physically challenged, is not established and furthermore as liability vests upon the petitioner/father to maintain the respondents who are none other than his children and that apart as a sum of ₹1,000/- per month granted towards maintenance initially will not be sufficient for the respondents to maintain themselves, this Court is of the view that the amount granted as maintenance requires enhancement. However, as no proof is produced with regard to the earnings of the petitioner by the respondents, this Court is of the view that the sum granted towards maintenance through the impugned order is excessive. This Court is also of the view that to meet the ends of justice and to protect the interests of the respondents, it would be wholly justifiable, if the petitioner is directed to pay each of the respondents - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5472 RPFC No. 160 of 2024 a sum of ₹4,000/- per month. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER i) The revision petition is allowed in part. ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 129/2022 dated 24.06.2024 is modified. iii) The amount granted towards maintenance through the impugned order to each of the respondents is reduced from ₹5,000/- per month to ₹4,000/- per month. iv) Thus, the petitioner shall pay the respondents a sum of ₹4,000/- per month each. v) All other directions of the Court holds good. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39