SMT T MANGALAGOWRAMMA vs M DHANUSHREE

- 1 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
R


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.139 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1. SMT.T. MANGALAGOWRAMMA
W/O LATE T. MADAIAH
D/O A.L THAMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/O AREYURU GRAMA
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 118.

WORKING AT:
HEAD MISTRESS
GOVERNMENT HIGHER PRIMARY SCHOOL,
HINDASKARE VILLAGE,
GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR - 572 213.

2. M. DARSHINI
W/O NAGESH
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.10
TH
7 CROSS
ARANYA BHAVAN
ASHOK PURAM,
MYSORE 570 008.

WORKING PLACE:
SDA, MYSORE,
MUDA, JLB ROAD,
MYSORE- 570 008.
…PETITIONERS







Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI
B N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA







(BY SMT.SUMAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


AND:

1. M DHANUSHREE
D/O LATE P.MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

2. M. DHANUSH
D/O LATE P. MADAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.5108,
TH
8 A MAIN ROAD,
RD
DATTAGALI 3 STAGE
KANAKADASANAGARA
MYSURU - 570 022.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ARCHANA MURTHY.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021
PASSED IN C.MISC.No.556/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125
OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN
HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.03.2026 AND
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

- 3 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


CAV ORDER

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the II
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in
Crl.Misc.No.556/2019 dated 27.09.2021, the respondents
therein have filed this petition. By the impugned order, the
Family Court has allowed the petition in-part filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents and granted
monthly maintenance and other monetary reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that:-
The petitioner No.1 is the mother and the petitioner
No.2 is the elder daughter and the respondents are the
younger daughter and son of the petitioner No.1. The
respondents had filed a petition seeking monthly
maintenance of Rs.15,000/- each, claiming inability to
maintain themselves. The father of the respondents
(husband of the petitioner No.1) was working as SDA at
Mysuru Urban Development Authority and died on
20.06.2013. After his death, the petitioner No.2 was
given compassionate appointment. The case of the

- 4 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


respondents is that the petitioners neglected to maintain
them despite having sufficient income and means.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended
that the respondents have attained the age of majority
and they are well-educated and earning through part-time
jobs. They are residing in the family property and deriving
rental income. Hence, they are not entitled to
maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The Petitioners
further allege that the respondents have been abusive,
harassing and acting under the influence of others and
filed the petition only to extract money.

4. The Family Court, however, directed that
respondent No.1 is entitled for monthly maintenance of
Rs.20,000/- until her marriage and Rs.10,00,000/-
towards her marriage expenses from petitioner No.1
herein and monthly maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month
until her marriage and Rs.2,00,000/- towards her
marriage expenses from the petitioner No.2. The
respondent No.2 is entitled for Rs.5,00,000/- and

- 5 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 respectively
and further entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each towards
his academic education till completion of his education
from the petitioners. The Family Court further directed
the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- each to the
respondents towards litigation expenses. Aggrieved by
the same, the petitioners have approached this Court
contending that the respondents, being major and capable
of maintaining themselves are not entitled to
maintenance. The impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and based on conjectures without
proper appreciation of evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrendra
Kumar Paul v. Maya Paul and Others (2009) 8 SCC
359,
wherein it has been held as under:

“10…. An application for grant of maintenance,
therefore is maintainable, so far as the children are
concerned, till they had not attained majority. As a
cause of action for grant of maintenance would arise
only in the event a person having sufficient means,
neglects or refuses to maintain his legitimate or
illegitimate minor child unable to maintain itself,

- 6 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


once, therefore, the children attained majority, the
said provision would cease to apply to their cases.”

(emphasis supplied)


6. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents
contends that the petitioner No.2 and the respondents are
siblings (brother and sisters) and after the death of their
father, who was working under the Mysuru Urban
Development Authority (MUDA), the petitioner No.2
obtained a job of her father under compassionate
appointment. At that time, she gave an undertaking that
she would take responsibility of the entire family, including
the respondents. However, after securing the job and
receiving benefits such as salary and family pension, the
petitioner No.2 allegedly neglected the respondents. She
got married, moved to Tumkur and failed to support their
education and daily needs. The respondents, who were
pursuing studies (ITI and M.Com), faced financial hardship
as they had no independent income and depended on the
deceased father’s benefits. Despite repeated requests and
even a formal representation to authorities (including
MUDA and local bodies), no action was taken to ensure

- 7 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


that the respondents received financial support. It was
also noted that the petitioner No.1, who is the mother of
the respondents was earning and getting pension but still
did not assist the respondents. Due to this neglect and
failure to fulfill the undertaking given at the time of
compassionate appointment, the respondents had
approached the Family Court seeking monthly
maintenance/financial support from the petitioners.
Hence, they contend that the impugned order is correct
and does not need any interference by this Court and
prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing for both the
parties and perused the material on record.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties
and going through the material on record, this Court has
observed that Petitioner No.2 is working as SDA in MUDA
since death of her father. Petitioner No.2 has not
disclosed her salary and has denied that she is getting
salary of Rs.56,754/-. Further, she has given an

- 8 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


undertaking that she would take care of Respondents No.1
and 2, which she has failed to maintain. For non-
disclosure of Petitioner No.2’s income from her avocation
and other assets and liability, adverse inference can be
drawn against petitioner No.2 that she is having sufficient
income. Admittedly, respondents No.1 and 2 have
completed their education. Respondent No.2-son has
completed his education and has attained the age of
majority. Therefore, he is not entitled for any
maintenance. Respondent No.1-daughter is unmarried.
Therefore, Respondent No.1 is entitled for maintenance
until she gets married and marriage expenses. Therefore,
as observed by the Family Court, considering the financial
status, increased cost of living and decrease in money
value, maintenance of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Family
Court to Respondent No.1 is just and reasonable.
Respondent No.1 is also entitled for marriage expenses.
Further, as Respondent No.2-son has attained the age of
majority, he is not entitled for any maintenance.
9. In the result, the following order is passed:

- 9 -
RPFC No. 139 of 2021


ORDER
i) The RPFC is allowed in part.
th
ii) The order dated 27 September 2021
passed nby the Family Court, Mysuru, in
Crl.Misc.No.556/2019 is modified.

iii) Respondent No.1-daughter is entitled
for monthly maintenance of Rs.20,000/- from
the date of petition till the date of her
marriage. Further, she is also entitled for
marriage expenses to be determined at the
time of her marriage.
iv) Respondent No.2 is not entitled for
any maintenance or marriage expenses.
v) Litigation expenses of Rs.2,500/- to
each to respondents 1 and 2 to be paid by
petitioners as ordered by the Family Court is
upheld.

SD/-
(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE

BNV