- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7019 RPFC No. 153 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 153 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI M VIKRAM AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS S/O G MURTHY NAIK R/AT NIRMALA NILAYA KALYAN NAGARA 6TH CROSS NEELAMBIKA MARGA JYOTHINAGARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT D SHWETHA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS D/O PARAMESHWAR NAIK W/O M VIKRAM R/A ONKARAMURTHY BADAVANE, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7019 RPFC No. 153 of 2024 MALLESHWAR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KADUR TALUK- 577 548 CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.08.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.175/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALAURU, 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: 2026:KHC:7019 RPFC No. 153 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. H.Malatesh learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Proof of service of notice upon respondent is on record. However respondent has not chosen to contest the matter. 3. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.175/2022 dated 21.08.2023, this revision petition is filed. 4. The respondent being the wife of the petitioner herein filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month. Family Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner/husband to pay respondent/wife a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month as maintenance. Projecting that the said sum is high and exorbitant, this revision petition is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a physically challenged person. He has no source of earnings. The respondent's parents assured that they will - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7019 RPFC No. 153 of 2024 look after their daughter i.e. the respondent herein as well as her husband i.e. the petitioner herein. On such assurance, marriage was performed. However, subsequently they did not take the responsibility. That apart respondent is maintaining illicit intimacy with another person. Thus, the respondent is not entitled for any maintenance at all. However Family Court directed the petitioner to pay huge sum of Rs.10,000/- per month to the respondent as maintenance. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order. 6. The version of the respondent is that the petitioner is in the field of doing sale and service of refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners etc., and he earns more than a lakh per month. Respondent failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to the earnings of the petitioner. However petitioner did not deny the fact that he is involved in repairing refrigerators etc. His contention is that he earns meager amount out of the work he does. Petitioner failed to produce any substantive proof with regard to his alleged disability. Except producing Ex-R1 identity card, no other document whatsoever was produced before the Family Court. Also no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7019 RPFC No. 153 of 2024 evidence was produced by the petitioner before the Family Court either in respect of the occupation and earnings of the respondent or that she has got such intimacy with another person as alleged by him. That apart there is no denial of the fact that the petition filed by the petitioner/husband for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Court and the said order attained finality. 7. Having considered all these factors, more particularly absence of any proof with regard to actual earnings of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that amount awarded as maintenance payable by the petitioner/husband to respondent/wife is excessive. This Court is of the view that petitioner/husband can be directed to pay respondent/wife a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, which is justifiable. 8. Hence the revision petition is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. The revision petition is allowed in part. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7019 RPFC No. 153 of 2024 ii. The order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.175/2022 dated 21.08.2023 is modified. iii. The sum granted towards monthly maintenance is reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.7,000/-. iv. Petitioner is directed to pay the said sum as maintenance to the respondent from the date of filing of the petition before the Family Court till her life time or until further orders by the Jurisdictional Court. v. Proceedings in interlocutory applications, pending if any, are closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7