- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 138 OF 2021 BETWEEN: SRI G PRAKASH S/O P GOWNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURIST R/O VIDYANAGAR, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT, BEHIND OLD COURT, HOSADURGA -577 527, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. PRESENTLY R/AT: FLAT NO. 239/3, (J-PART # 5/A-1) FABRO ENGINEER, OWNER, HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, MYSURU-570 001. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRANEETH G.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT VENILA @ VEDA W/O G PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.5082 2ND STAGE, Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021 4TH CROSS VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 017. 2. YUVARAJ, S/O G PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT VENILA @ VEDA, W/O G PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.5082 2ND STAGE, 4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 017. 3. RUTHIK, S/O G. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT VENILA @ VEDA, W/O G PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.5082, 2ND STAGE, 4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 017. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHEHINSHA ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 (ABSENT)) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2019 PASSED IN C.MISC.No.402/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard the submission made by Ms.Aishwarya Hegde, who represented Sri Praneeth G.N., learned counsel on record for petitioner, on 23.01.2026. There was no representation on respondents' side on that day. To give fair opportunity to the respondents to make their submission, the matter was adjourned. However, even on this day there is no representation on respondents' side. 2. Being aggrieved by the order rendered by the Court of IV Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.402/2019 dated 02.12.2019, this revision petition is filed. 3. There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021 4. Respondents filed a petition against the petitioner herein seeking the Court to direct the petitioner to pay respondent No.1 a sum of ₹20,000/- and respondents No.2 and 3 a sum of ₹10,000/- each per month towards maintenance. As per the version of respondents, petitioner is maintaining 'Fabro Engineering Works' at Hebbal Industrial Layout, Mysuru and thereby he earns ₹1,00,000/- per month. He also holds agricultural lands and house at Hosudurga, through which he earns ₹25,000/- per month. The Family Court directed the petitioner herein to pay each of the respondents ₹5,000/- per month towards maintenance. 5. The submission that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has got no means to pay such huge sum. Learned counsel contends that though legally the petitioner is liable to maintain the respondents, in the light of his financial position and family constraints he cannot pay any amount to them. The learned counsel submitted that the sister of the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021 suffered with cancer for considerable period and finally she passed away. Petitioner spent lot of amount for her treatment. Also petitioner has to look after his aged father. On the other hand respondent No.1 is a Tailor and she has got support of her parents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny the fact that the petitioner, except filing his statement of objections to the petition filed by the respondents herein seeking maintenance, did not choose either to cross- examine the respondents' witness or produce any material in support of his version that due to family constraints and unemployment he cannot maintain the respondents. Equally, he has not produced any material to show that respondent No.1 is a tailor by profession and she has got her own source of livelihood. 7. Respondents No.2 and 3 being minor children, it is the responsibility of the petitioner herein being father to maintain them. Family Court granted a sum of ₹5,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021 only to each of the respondents. The said amount cannot be termed to be excessive. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in the revision petition. 8. Resultantly, the following: ORDER The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16