- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8653 RPFC No. 65 of 2017 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. 65 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI T. VASUDEVA S/O SRI THIMMANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT NAGAVALLI VILLAGE, BEHIND GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK-572120 …PETITIONER (BY MS. SOWMYA ANANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANDEEP LAHERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT JAYAMMA W/O SRI T VASUDEVA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. KUM.SHRUTHI D/O T.VASUDEVA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8653 RPFC No. 65 of 2017 3. KUMARI MAMATHA D/O SRI T VASUDEVA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NAGAVALLI VILLAGE, HEBBUR HOBLI, TUMKURU TALUK-572120 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. S. VENKATARAMANA FOR R1-R3.,ADVOCATE) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(1) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT,1984 PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND THEREAFTER SET ASIDE THIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.06.2016 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY Court, TUMKUR IN C.MIS.NO.351/2013 (C.MIS.NO.360/2013) CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE PETITION FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN FOR MAITENANCE AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER/S WHICH IS DEEMED TO BE FIT IN THE NATURE OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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:8653 RPFC No. 65 of 2017 ORAL ORDER Heard Ms.Sowmya Ananth who represents Sri.Sandeep Laheri learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri. K.S.Venkataramana learned counsel for respondents. 2. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumkur in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.351/2013 dated 01.06.2016. 3. Wife and two daughters who are shown as respondents herein filed a petition against the petitioner herein invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to each of them. Family Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner herein to pay respondent Nos.1 and 3 a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month each towards maintenance. The Court disallowed the request of respondent No.2 for maintenance on the ground that she got married. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8653 RPFC No. 65 of 2017 4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is having small extent of land which is not cultivable. Petitioner, due to his health condition and ailments is unable to pay maintenance as ordered by the Family Court. Petitioner came forward to give his landed property to first respondent but she refused. Petitioner is not attending any work whatsoever and thus he has no source of earning. That apart, third respondent got married and hence petitioner is not liable to pay any maintenance to her. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the revision petition and to set aside the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that the health condition of petitioner is not so worse which prevents him from attending his regular activities and to earn. Learned counsel contends that petitioner colluded with his family members. He shows the undivided property valuable to their shares and the property which is not fit for active cultivation on his name and this is done to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8653 RPFC No. 65 of 2017 prevent the lawful claim of his wife and children who are the respondents herein. Learned counsel contends that the Family Court granted a meager sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards maintenance which indeed is not sufficient. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is wilfully evading to pay maintenance to the respondents and thus the revision petition is not maintainable. 6. A perusal of impugned order reveals clear discussion by the Family Court with regard to the merits of the matter. As per the submission that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent got married. Family Court made a clear mention in the impugned order that the maintenance granted in favour of respondent No.3 is only till her marriage. Therefore, petitioner will be under no obligation to pay maintenance to respondent No.3 after the date of her marriage. 7. So far as maintenance granted in favour of first respondent is concerned, there is no material on record to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8653 RPFC No. 65 of 2017 show that first respondent has got her own source of earning. The medical record relied upon by the petitioner does not show that the petitioner suffers with such infirmity or acute illness which prevents him from attending his regular activities. A sum of Rs.4,000/- was granted in the year 2016 towards maintenance of the first respondent. As rightly contented by learned counsel for respondents, the said sum after 10 years i.e. in the year 2026 will not be sufficient for first respondent to maintain herself. But petitioner/husband has filed this revision petition even disputing to pay such an amount to his wife. 8. Having gone through the contents of the impugned order and in the light of the discussion that went on supra, this Court ultimately holds that there are no merits in the revision petition. Resultantly following:- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8653 RPFC No. 65 of 2017 ORDER The revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25