- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4474 RPFC No. 282 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.282 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. SHILPA M. J. W/O. NAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NEAR SMA BAKERY JAYANAGRA WEST TUMAKURU-577 126 …PETITIONER (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI NAVEENKUMAR C. O. S/O. K. OMKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4474 RPFC No. 282 of 2025 R/AT SINDHURA NILAYA NEAR B. A. GADI PALYA SCHOOL ANJANAPPA LAYOUT HANUMANTHAPURA …RESPONDENT (BY SRI JAYASIMHA K. P., ADVOCATE, (ABSENT)) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2025 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.272/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 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: 2026:KHC:4474 RPFC No. 282 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Mallikarjun B Ryakha learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. No representation on respondent's side on call. 3. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.272/2023 dated 21.04.2025. 4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus, revision petitioner is the wife of the respondent herein. The revision petitioner filed a petition claiming maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month from the respondent. The Court through the impugned order directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month to the revision petitioner towards maintenance. With a contention that the said sum is grossly low, the present revision petition is filed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4474 RPFC No. 282 of 2025 5. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent is earning Rs.60,000/- per month as salary. Respondent has got huge landed property and he derives income from the said landed property. Also, respondent get rents from the buildings he let out. Thus, respondent has got sufficient means to pay petitioner a sum of Rs.40,000/- per month, but without considering the financial status of respondent, the Court granted very meager sum as maintenance. 6. As per the version of petitioner, respondent besides earning Rs.60,000/- per month as salary, gets Rs.40,000/- per month towards rents from the buildings and also Rs.25,00,000/- per annum through agriculture. 7. The version of respondent is that petitioner is highly qualified than him and she is working as accountant at Vidyanidhi College, Tumakuru and she is getting salary higher than that of him. Perceiving the fact that petitioner resigned from service with effect from 30.11.2023, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4474 RPFC No. 282 of 2025 Court held that she is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance from the respondent. 8. Though petitioner contended that respondent earns more than Rs.60,000/- per month from his job, gets rental income of Rs.40,000/- per month and Rs.25,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, she failed to produce any substantive proof to that effect. Having considered the gross salary and net salary of respondent as indicated at para 17 of the impugned order, the Court came to a conclusion that a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month if ordered to be paid to petitioner by respondent, it will be in consonance to the financial status of respondent. Having gone through the contents of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the decision taken by the Court is valid. Petitioner failed to produce any substantive proof in support of her version that respondent derives rental income and agricultural income. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds whatsoever - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4474 RPFC No. 282 of 2025 to interfere with the observations made by the Family Court and the amount granted towards maintenance. Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14