- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7994 RPFC No. 262 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 262 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A. PALANIVEL, S/O. ARMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O. NO. 17A, NEW NO.47, SUNDAR RAM STREET, ARCOT, VELLUR DISTRICT, TAMILNADU - 632 503. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. GANESHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PACHAMMA W/O. SRI. PALANIVEL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. KUM. JANANI Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7994 RPFC No. 262 of 2025 D/O. SRI. PALANIVEL, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. PACHAMMA, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT MUNIYAMMA BEEDI, TAMIL COLONY, SANTHE MARKET, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N. SIVA SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASH M.H., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.54/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU., PARTLY 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:7994 RPFC No. 262 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. K.S.Ganesha learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. Prakash M.H learned counsel for respondents. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.54/2024 dated 10.07.2025. 3. As the relationship between the parties inter se is not in dispute, parties to the proceedings will hereinafter be referred to as husband, wife and child. 4. Wife and child filed a petition invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Family Court rejected the claim of the wife for time being. It ordered the husband to pay the child a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance. Husband is before this Court disputing his liability to pay such an amount. 5. Learned counsel who represents the husband submits that husband has no source of earnings whereas wife is getting huge sum towards rents. Perceiving the said fact the Family Court dismissed the claim of the wife. As husband has no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7994 RPFC No. 262 of 2025 means to pay maintenance to the child even, the impugned order is required to be set aside. Learned counsel also states that husband on obtaining a decree of divorce, contacted another marriage and a child is born out of the said wedlock and thus the petitioner/husband has to maintain his wife and child too. 6. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for respondent contends that all were residing in the state of Karnataka only but husband shifted to Tamil Nadu and started residing there. He filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights at the jurisdictional Court at Tamil Nadu and obtained an ex parte decree. Within short time he filed a petition seeking decree of divorce and obtained a decree of divorce also. In both the proceedings, he managed and saw that notice did not reach the wife. Thus he obtained ex parte decrees. Learned counsel also states that it is the responsibility of the petitioner/husband to maintain his child and thus the Court rightly directed him to pay maintenance to the child and therefore the revision petition is not maintainable. 7. The Family Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner/husband to pay the child a sum of Rs.6,000/- per - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7994 RPFC No. 262 of 2025 month towards maintenance. The version of learned counsel who represents the husband is that wife gets rental income and therefore she can maintain the child. It is not the responsibility of only one i.e., husband or wife to maintain their children. In case both have got their own source of earnings, both have to maintain the children. If the petitioner/husband had no means to maintain himself as contented by him, this Court doesn't understand how he contacted another marriage and begot a child. Now he projects that he has to maintain his wife and the child born through second marriage. 8. Admittedly a sum of Rs.6,000/- will not be sufficient for a child of 14 years to pursue her studies, to spend for clothing and other necessities which includes food, transportation to school, medical expenditure etc.,. Thus even mother has to contribute. Therefore this Court is of the view that the Family Court did not err in fastening liability upon the petitioner/husband and directing him to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards maintenance to the child. 9. Hence this Court concludes that there are no merits in the revision petition. Resultantly, following:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7994 RPFC No. 262 of 2025 ORDER Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37