- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:481 RPFC No. 253 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 253 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. CHANDRU @ VENKATASWAMY S/O VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NILUVAGILU VILLAGE, ANTHARASANTHE HOBLI H.D. KOTE TALUK MYSURU TALUKA - 571 419. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL SHRISHAIL CHOUDHARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O CHANDRU @ VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. GAGANASHREE Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:481 RPFC No. 253 of 2022 D/O CHANDRU @ VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT YEARS(MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN i.e. RESPONDENT NO.1 BOTH ARE R/A NO.773/4A, 7TH CROSS RAMANUJA ROAD, MYSURU - 570 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SAMARTH SHREEDHAR, ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 28.07.2022 PASSED IN Crl.MISC.NO.120/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU. PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.127 OF Cr.P.C FOR ENHANCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:481 RPFC No. 253 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Sunil Shrishail Choudhari learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Samarth Shreedhar learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by the order that is passed by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.120/2020 dated 28.07.2022, the respondent therein filed the present revision petition. The relationship between the parties that the revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of the second respondent is not in dispute. Equally it is not in dispute that the respondents initially filed a petition for grant of maintenance i.e., Crl.Misc.No. 450/2013 and the same was allowed in part, granting maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the first respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of the second respondent. 3. It is borne by record that the respondents thereafter filed the Crl.Misc.No.120/2020 seeking enhancement of monthly maintenance. The first respondent sought Rs.15,000/- and the second respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:481 RPFC No. 253 of 2022 Rs.10,000/-. The Court through the impugned order enhanced the sum of maintenance to Rs.6,000/- per month in favour of the first respondent and Rs.4,000/- per month in favour of the second respondent with a direction to the revision petitioner to pay the same. 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is suffering from heart ailment and he is under regular medication and therefore he is unable to pay the enhanced sum as maintenance. Learned counsel also states that the first respondent is working in a garments factory and she is earning Rs.30,000/- per month which is sufficient for her to maintain herself and also the second respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the first respondent is maintaining extra marital affair with another person and the evidence to that effect was also produced before the Court below but the Court failed to appreciate the evidence produced. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:481 RPFC No. 253 of 2022 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the revision petitioner does not suffer with any such ailment as projected by him. Learned counsel also states that though the Court granted maintenance of Rs.3,000/- per month in favour of the first respondent and Rs.1,000/- per month in favour of the second respondent initially, the revision petitioner never choose to pay the same till an application is filed by them seeking a direction from the Court to the revision petitioner to pay the same. Learned counsel also states that huge arrears is still pending. Learned counsel further submits that the revision petitioner failed to produce any convincing evidence in support of his alleged ailment or to establish his contention about the extra marital affair that is being maintained by the first respondent. Learned counsel also states that the view expressed by the Court and the amount awarded as maintenance through the impugned order is justifiable and therefore the revision petition is not maintainable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:481 RPFC No. 253 of 2022 6. A perusal of record reveals absence of any material that is produced by the respondents herein to show that there is substantial increase in the earnings of the revision petitioner herein from the date of disposal of the Crl.Misc.No. 450/2013 by which a sum of Rs.3,000/- is granted in favour of the first respondent and Rs.1,000/- in favour of the second respondent. Equally the revision petitioner failed to produce any substantive proof to show that he is incapacitated to earn due to the alleged health issue. Likewise, he failed to establish that the first respondent is maintaining any such extra marital affair. The Court has rightly held that the revision petitioner failed to establish the genuineness of Ex.R-15 to R-17 photographs. However, as the respondents failed to produce any proof with regard to such substantial increase of earnings on part of the revision petitioner, this Court is of the view that the enhanced sum of maintenance in favour of first respondent is required to be reduced by Rs.2,000/-. So far as the sum enhanced in favour of the 2nd respondent is concerned, as she is a school going child, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:481 RPFC No. 253 of 2022 an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards monthly maintenance cannot be termed to be excessive. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. The order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, at Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No. 120/2020 dated 28.07.2022 is modified. ii. The amount that is granted as monthly maintenance in favour of the first respondent i.e., Rs.6,000/- is reduced to Rs.4,000/-. iii. The modification in monthly maintenance to be payable by the revision petitioner to the first respondent applies from the date of petition i.e., Crl.Misc.No.120/2020. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55