- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5338 RPFC No. 240 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.240 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI SAMPANGI RAMAIAH N. M. @ ABBAIAH S/O. MUNISWAMY K. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NAGONDAHALLI VILLAGE KUDIYANUR POST LAKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 …PETITIONER (BY SRI ADINARAYANAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MALA M. @ SANDHYA W/O. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH N. M. @ ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS 2. MASTER BHAVANTH S. R. S/O. SAMPANGI RAMAIAH N. M. @ ABBAIAH AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN-SMT. MALA M. @ SANDHYA Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5338 RPFC No. 240 of 2024 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT YATTAKODI VILLAGE LAKKUR HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130 NOW RESIDING AT C/O. RATHNAMMA W/O. MUNIRAJU M. 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS KURUBARPET KOLAR-563 101 …RESPONDENTS (R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; R-2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R-1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.15/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C., FOR 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:5338 RPFC No. 240 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Adinarayanappa, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is being represented by his mother respondent No.1. Though notice was served upon respondent No.1, respondent No.1 failed to contest the matter. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar in Crl.Misc.No.15/2021 dated 04.07.2024. 3. Respondent No.1 being the wife and respondent No.2 being the minor son of the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. The Family Court held that the first respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and the second respondent Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance and directed the petitioner herein to pay the same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5338 RPFC No. 240 of 2024 4. Arguing the matter learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner by doing coolie work earns not more than Rs.5,000/- per month and therefore, he cannot pay such huge amount towards maintenance of the respondents as ordered by the Court. 5. As per the version of respondents, as an agriculturalist and by working in an apartment as maintenance manager, the petitioner earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month. In the impugned order the Family Court made a clear observation that the agricultural lands shown by the respondents herein does not solely stand in the name of the petitioner and a civil suit between the family members is also pending. Furthermore respondents did not adduce any evidence to show that the petitioner is working as maintenance manager in an apartment. They have not even furnished the details of the said apartment and the place where it is located. The Court expressing its opinion that the petitioner need not continuously work in agricultural land throughout the year and as he is residing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5338 RPFC No. 240 of 2024 nearby Bengaluru city, it is possible that he is also having some other avocation to earn and that he is able-bodied person, came to conclusion that he is liable to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month to his wife towards maintenance and Rs.5,000/- per month to his son towards maintenance. 6. 6. Without substantive piece of evidence, only basing on guesswork, no party can be directed to pay any sum towards maintenance which is beyond his capacity. At the same time this Court is of the view that liability vests upon the petitioner to maintain his wife and minor son. Therefore, to meet the ends of justice, this Court considers desirable to modify the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay respondent Nos.1 and 2 a sum of Rs.4,000/- each towards maintenance. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The revision petition is allowed in part. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5338 RPFC No. 240 of 2024 (ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar in Crl.Misc.No.15/2021 dated 04.07.2024 is modified. (iii) Petitioner is directed to pay respondent Nos.1 and 2 a sum of Rs.4,000/- each per month towards maintenance. (iv) The said amount shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1 till her lifetime or till there are change of circumstances basing on which further orders are passed by the concerned Court. (v) Petitioner shall pay maintenance to respondent No.2 till he attains the age of majority. (vi) The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE NS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35