- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8713 RPFC No. 114 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 114 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVARATHRI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O M P MOGANNEGOWDA, R/AT PARASAIAHNAHUNDI, SRIRAMPURA POST, KUVEMPUNAGARA, MYSURU - 570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT RANI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, W/O SHIVARATHRI, D/O SWAMYGOWDA, R/AT BANDAHALLI, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K R NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU - 570 014. 2. VANDANA AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8713 RPFC No. 114 of 2024 D/O SHIVARATHRI, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT RANI, 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE R/AT BANDAHALLI, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K R NAGAR TALUK, MYSURU - 570 014. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARPITH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANIKETHAN K. M. ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. PRL. FAMILY JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL. MISC.NO.1118/2022 DATED 31.01.2024, IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO GRANTING MAINTENANCE TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND REDUCE THE MAINTENANCE AMOUNT GRANTING TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT, BY ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION. 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:8713 RPFC No. 114 of 2024 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.C.Mohan who represents Sri.P.Nataraju learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri.Arpith who represents Sri.Anikethan K.M learned counsel on record for respondents. 2. This revision petition is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru in Criminal Misc. Case No.1118/2022 dated 31.01.2024. 3. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute thus petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2. Respondents filed a petition against the petitioner invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Family Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.7,500/- and petitioner No.2 a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month as maintenance. Projecting - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8713 RPFC No. 114 of 2024 that sum granted towards maintenance is excessive, this revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is doing coolie work and he has got no movable or immovable properties worth mentioning. Petitioner has got every responsibility to take care of his daughter and therefore he is paying amount of Rs.1,000/- per month under Sukanya Samruthi Scheme. Family Court directed the petitioner to pay huge sum of Rs.7,500/- per month towards maintenance of first respondent and Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance of second respondent which he is unable to pay. Learned counsel thereby seeks to pass necessary orders. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioner failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities before the Family Court. Petitioner is a Civil Contractor and he earns around Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Respondent No.1 has got no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8713 RPFC No. 114 of 2024 source of earnings and she is under obligation to maintain respondent No.2 as well. Thus, the sum granted towards maintenance is just and reasonable. 6. Admittedly petitioner has not filed his statement of assets and liabilities before the Family Court. However respondents who contends that petitioner is a civil contractor and earns Rs.1,00,000/- per month have failed to establish their version. But the fact which cannot be denied is that petitioner is under obligation to maintain the respondents as the petitioner has not chosen to establish that respondent No.1 has got her own source of earnings and about the liability on his part to maintain respondent No.2. 7. Though learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.1 can maintain herself and thereby relied upon the decision of this Court in the case between Mr.R.Dadapeer -vs- Mrs.Nasreen Banu in Revision petition No.57/2025 dated 20.01.2026, here is a case where there - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8713 RPFC No. 114 of 2024 is no material on record to show that petitioner herein suffers with any disability to earn and likewise respondent No.1 has got source of earning. At the same time this Court is of the view that the amount granted towards maintenance is slightly excessive in the light of the fact that there is no material to show that petitioner is a Civil Contractor and earns around Rs.1,00,000/- per month as contented by the respondents. 8. This Court is also of the view that justice can be done to both parties in case petitioner is directed to pay respondents a sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards maintenance. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of with the following:- ORDER i. Revision petition is allowed in part. ii. The order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8713 RPFC No. 114 of 2024 Criminal Misc. Case No.1118/2022 dated 31.01.2024 is modified. iii. Petitioner is directed to pay respondent Nos. 1 and 2 a sum of Rs.5,000/- each per month as maintenance from the date of petition i.e. 16.12.2022. iv. The sum granted towards maintenance shall be paid by the petitioner to respondent No.1 during her lifetime or until she remarries or until further orders from the competent Court. v. The amount granted towards maintenance shall be paid to respondent No.2 till she attains the age of majority or till her employment or till her marriage whichever is later. vi. The revision petition is according disposed of. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26