- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:11 RPFC No. 100161 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REV. PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100161 OF 2025 BETWEEN: VEERAYYA S/O. ANDAYYA HIREMATH (HANCHINAL), AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUDDABALLI, TQ. & DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR BALAGERIMATH AND MS. M. V. POOJAR, ADVOCATES.) AND: 1. SMT. PUSHPAVATHI W/O. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, (HANCHINAL) AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MUDDABALLI, TQ. & DIST. KOPPAL, NOW AT R/O. HIREBAAGANAL, TQ. & DIST. KOPPAL-583231. 2. VEDAVATHI D/O. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 16 MINOR, OCC: STUDENT. 3. VAISHNAVI D/O. VEERAYYA HIREMATH, AGE: 14 MINOR, OCC: STUDENT, THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND THEY HAVE ARE UNDER GUARDIANSHIP OF THEIR NATURAL MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1. …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALLING FOR THE RECORDS AND PROCEEDS OF THE CASE THIS COURT BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, KOPPAL IN CRL.MISC.NO.74/2024 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION WITH COST IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:11 RPFC No. 100161 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The present petition is filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 19841, calling in question the order dated 21.07.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.74/2024 on the file of Principal Judge, Family Court, Koppal2, whereby the petition was allowed in part with costs of ₹1,000/-, granting monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- payable by the petitioner to respondent No.1 (wife), and monthly maintenance of ₹4,000/- each to respondents No.2 and 3 (children). 2. The respondents’ herein filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, seeking maintenance of ₹25,000/- each per month from the petitioner herein, stating that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1 and that respondents No.2 and 3 are the children born out of the wedlock between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is further alleged that the petitioner has assaulted and abused the 1 For short, ‘Act of 1984’ 2 For short, ‘Family Court’ 3 For short, ‘Cr.P.C.’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:11 RPFC No. 100161 of 2025 respondents, compelling them to file the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. 3. Several allegations have been made against the petitioner, including that he is addicted to bad habits like drinking alcohol, womanizing. It is further alleged that the petitioner has neglected and failed to maintain the respondents, and therefore the present petition has been filed. 4. The learned Magistrate, having considered the fact that the petitioner is in possession of 07 acres of land, granted the order of maintenance. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of the said 07 acres of land, as there are other co-owners and family members. Hence, it is contended that the maintenance awarded by the learned Magistrate is on the higher side. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents have admitted that the petitioner has neglected and failed to maintain them, and therefore the learned Magistrate - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:11 RPFC No. 100161 of 2025 has rightly fixed the quantum of maintenance and passed the impugned order. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner is entitled to a share in the agricultural land measuring 07 acres, whether he is the exclusive owner of the entire land or holds only a share therein is immaterial for the purpose of determining his liability to pay maintenance to the respondents. Being the husband of respondent No.1 and the father of respondents No.2 and 3, the petitioner is bound to maintain them. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has correctly assessed the quantum of maintenance and passed the impugned order. Hence, no merit is found to cause interference in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 8. With the above observations, the petition is dismissed. 9. In view of the dismissal of petition, pending I.A.’s, if any, shall also stands dismissed. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30