[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. B Raghavendra S/O B V Rarnara Rao vs M S Sumalatha D/O Late M.S.Lingoji Rao on 15 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
RPFC No. 100126 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100126 OF 2025 (-)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O. B.V. RAMANA RAO,
AGE: 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H.NO.87-1362-1-2,
CHANDRASHEKAR NAGAR,
NEAR NANDYAL CHECK POST,
KURNOOL CITY AND DISTRICT-518002,
8143339501.
...PETITIONER
BHARATHI (BY SRI. KARAN GUPTA, ADVOCATE)
HM
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
1. M.S. SUMALATHA
D/O. LATE M.S. LINGOJI RAO,
AGE: 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT WARD NO.35,
KURIHATTI 3RD CROSS,
SIRIGUPPA ROAD,
BELLARY,
KARNATAKA-583101.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
RPFC No. 100126 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. BUKKAI KAUSHIK RAO,
S/O. B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
AGE: 5 YEARS,
MINORS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER-R1
3. REVANTH RAO
S/O. B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO,
AGE: 3 YEARS
MINORS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER R1
...RESPONDENTS
(BY KUM. SONU SUHEL N., APPOINTED AS COURT GUARDIAN
MINOR R2 AND R3; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED;
R2 AND R3 REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN CRL.MISC.NO.151/2023 AND ALLOW THE PRESENT
REVISION PETITION, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 05.10.2024 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY
JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELLARY IN CRL.MISC.NO.151/2023
(PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
RPFC No. 100126 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard both sides on main petition.
2. Respondent No.1 on her behalf and also on
behalf of her two minor children has filed petition before the
trial Court under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. praying for
maintenance of ₹20,000/- per month. After contest, the
said petition was partly allowed granting maintenance only
to minor children at ₹5,000/- each per month to respondent
Nos.2 and 3. However, no maintenance was granted on
behalf of respondent No.1.
3. It is an admitted fact that the divorce was
granted by a competent Court of law dissolving the
marriage of the revision petitioner and respondent No. 1.
4. There were serious allegations between revision
petitioner and respondent No.1 regarding the character of
respondent No.1 and other facts which need not be looked
into in detail in this revision petition, because it is filed only
by the husband and wife is not challenging the same.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
HC-KAR
5. Furthermore, after service of notice of this
revision petition, respondent No.1-wife is unrepresented.
Hence, Court guardian is appointed for respondent Nos.2
and 3 and she has filed objections to the main petition. The
salary certificate of revision petitioner was produced before
trial Court and it was marked as Ex.R.3 for the month of
February-2024. This salary slip reveals that even by
including overtime charges, the gross salary of the revision
petitioner was ₹15,070/- and after making deductions in
respect of E.S.I. and E.P.F. premium, his net salary would
be ₹14,610/-.
6. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that,
from his meager salary, he has to maintain himself, his
aged parents, and also look after his minor children.
7. The contention of revision petitioner is that
initially interim maintenance of ₹2,500/- per month was
granted to each child and he is paying that amount without
fail in every month and after he coming to know about the
grant of maintenance at ₹5,000/- each to each child per
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
HC-KAR
month, by taking loan from his friends, well-wishers and
relatives, he is making payment of ₹5,000/- each to the
minor children i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it is
impossible for him to make such payment.
8. Learned advocate cum Court guardian for
respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that there are five
immovable properties and revision petitioner is getting
rentals from it and thus, it is not difficult for him to make
payment of ₹5,000/- each to each child and it is a proper
maintenance awarded by the trial Court.
9. It is to be noted here that the petitioners before
trial Court i.e. petitioner No.1 who is mother of petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 has not produced any iota of evidence to show
that revision petitioner is having any immovable properties
and getting rentals from it. Hence, her contention was not
accepted by the trial Court and was discussed as follows at
paragraph No.17:
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
HC-KAR
"17. That on iota of evidence is adduced
by the first petitioner to prove the income of
respondent as pleaded by her. In other words
first petitioner adduce no material evidence to
prove that respondent earns Rs.20,000/- by
way of salary and also another sum of
Rs.20,000/- by way of rents from different 5
immovable house properties. The mere oral
version of first petitioner in this behalf can not
be acted upon."
10. After taking note of the fact that the petitioner
No.1 before trial Court has not produced any material that
the revision petitioner is getting rentals, the trial Court
without examining the salary slip of the revision petitioner
has granted monthly maintenance of ₹5,000/- each to
respondent Nos.2 and 3.
11. When salary of revision petitioner is only of
₹15,070/- per month, it is impossible for him to make
payment of ₹5,000/- each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e. a
total sum of ₹10,000/- per month.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
HC-KAR
12. Considering the salary slip of revision petitioner
and other aspects, this Court is of the opinion that granting
₹3,000/- per month to each respondent Nos.2 and 3 would
meet the ends of justice, because respondent Nos.2 and 3
are minors and studying in schools and thus, at least
₹3,000/- each per month is required for their maintenance.
13. Considering all these aspects, this Court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
The revision petition filed under Section 19(4) of the
Family Courts Act, 1984 is partly allowed.
The maintenance amount awarded to respondent
Nos.2 and 3 by trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.151/2023 dated
05.10.2024 is modified as follows:
i) The revision petitioner is directed to
pay ₹3,000/- each per month to
respondent Nos.2 and 3 on or before
the 10th of the succeeding month from
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5514
HC-KAR
May-2026 onwards, until they attain
the age of majority.
ii) The Court guardian fees is fixed at
₹5,000/-.
iii) The effort of Court guardian Ms.Sonu
Suhel N., is appreciated for assisting
the Court for disposal of the revision
petition.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
SSP
CT-MCK
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 7
