- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2024:KHC:53492 RPFC No. 173 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 173 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. H.B. SURESH KUMAR, S/O BYRAJU AGED ABOUT 45 EYARS, R/AT NO. 86, KEMPEGOWDANAGAR BYDARAHALLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD VISHWANEEDAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 091. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. AKSHITHA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHEKHAR BADIGER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KAVITHA S, W/O H.B. SURESH KUMAR, D/O SIDDARAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. BHAVANA H.S. D/O H.B. SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS 3. AMRUTH H.S. D/O H.B. SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2024:KHC:53492 RPFC No. 173 of 2024 SINCE RESPONDENT NOS. 2 AND 2 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN, THEIR MOTHER VIZ RESPONDENT 1 RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 3 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NO. 41/1 2ND CROSS, WEAVER'S COLONY VISHWESHWARANAGARA BEHIND BINDU BAKERY, MYSURU - 570 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RUPESH KUMAR S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.1010/2022 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, 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: 2024:KHC:53492 RPFC No. 173 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Ms. Akshita Sharma who represents Sri. Shekhar Badiger learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri. Rupesh Kumar.S learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This revision petition is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.Case No.1010/2022 dated 29.09.2023. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The first respondent was the legally wedded wife of the revision petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are their children. 3. Respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the revision petitioner. Through the impugned order, the Court directed the revision petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month to the first respondent and Rs.4,000/- each per month to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as maintenance. Aggrieved by - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2024:KHC:53492 RPFC No. 173 of 2024 the quantum of sum that is granted, the present revision petition is filed. 4. On this day, both the learned counsel collectively submit that both parties have not filed their statement of assets and liabilities before the Court. Thus, the Court had no material to assess either the income of the revision petitioner or the income of the first respondent, same is the case with the properties they possessed. Thus, the Court could not come to a just conclusion with regard to the quantum of amount which the respondents herein are entitled for maintenance. Both the learned counsel thereby seeks to remand the matter to the trial Court so that both parties can file their statements of assets and liabilities. 5. As per the version of the respondents, the revision petitioner as electrician is earning substantial amount and thereby he can pay the sum that is claimed. On the other hand the version of the revision petitioner is that he is earning not more than Rs.15,000/- per month and that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2024:KHC:53492 RPFC No. 173 of 2024 apart the first respondent/wife is also an employee. Having considered these rival contentions and upon going through the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the Court could not come to a just conclusion with regard to the actual earnings and the financial status of the rival parties. 6. The Court at para 20 of the impugned order observed that nowadays in metropolitan city like Bangalore a skilled worker must be earning minimum Rs.35,000/- per month. Liability cannot be imposed on general observations. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an opportunity as sought for is required to be accorded to both parties to submit their statement of assets and liabilities so that the Court can dispose of the case on merits. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2024:KHC:53492 RPFC No. 173 of 2024 ii. The order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.Case No.1010/2022 dated 29.09.2023 is set aside. iii. The Court is directed to afford an opportunity to both parties i.e., the revision petitioner herein and respondent No.1 to submit their statement of assets and liabilities and thereafter to pass an order afresh. iv. Interim maintenance if any ordered to be paid during the pendency of the case shall be continued. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17