Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 102 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. GOVINDA @ S. NAVEEN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O LATE SANNEGOWDA,
R/AT D. NO. 1038, SARVAJANIKA,
HOSTEL ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM,
MYSURU - 570 008.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SOWMYA
DODDAMARAIAH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. SMT. S RASHMI @ S LAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
W/O S GOVINDA @ S NAVEEN KUMAR,
D/O SHIVSHANKAR,
R/AT D NO 1641, UPPINAKERE,
2ND MAIN ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU - 570001.
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
2.
CHI. HARSHITH G.,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDA @ S NAVEEN KUMAR,
(REP BY MOTHER RESPONDENT NO 1.)
R/AT D. NO. 1641, UPPINAKERE,
2ND MAIN ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU - 570 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RACHANA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MANMOHAN P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS A MINOR REP. BY R1)
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.09.2019 PASSED
IN C.MISC.No.555/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF
Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as Ms.Rachana who represents
Sri.Manmohan.P.N, learned counsel on record for the
respondents.
2. Aggrieved by the orders that were rendered by
the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Mysuru in C.Misc.No.555/2016 dated 11.09.2019, this
revision petition is filed.
3. There is no dispute regarding the relationship
between the parties that the revision petitioner is the
husband of first respondent and father of second
respondent.
4. For the sake of convenience of discussion
parties to the proceedings will hereinafter be referred to as
the husband, wife and child.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
5. Wife and child filed a petition under Section 125
Cr.P.C i.e., C.Misc.No.555/2016 seeking the Court to grant
maintenance from the husband. The Court of I Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru allowed the petition
in part directing the husband to pay Rs.15,000/- per
month to the wife and Rs.15,000/- per month to the child
towards maintenance.
6. Submitting that the amount granted is
exorbitant, learned counsel for the husband contends that
the husband is a tempo driver who earns not more than
Rs.16,000/- per month. He has no sources of earnings
other than what he earns as driver. He has got 2 acres of
land which yields nothing. Wife has shown all the family
property to be the property of the husband and the Court
without giving proper consideration to the documents
produced by the wife granted huge sum as maintenance in
her favour. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the
revision petition.
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
7. On the other hand, learned counsel who
represents the wife and child states that sufficient
evidence was produced before the trial Court in proof of
the earnings of the husband and thus the maintenance
granted is justifiable.
8. As per the version of wife and child, husband is
having a lorry, he is a businessman involved in sale of
cement, supply of building material, doing real estate
business etc ., has got a commercial complex abutting
Mysuru-Nanjanagudu road, has let out a portion of the
commercial complex on rent for a hotel to run, he is
having residential houses and thereby earns more than
Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Even if it is taken into
consideration that there is a commercial complex by name
and style Sri.Sannegowda Devamma Commercial Complex
and that Sannegowda is the father and Devamma is the
mother of the husband, there is no material on record to
show that the husband is running the said commercial
complex and he derives earnings through the said
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
commercial complex. Production of documents itself is not
sufficient. Through those documents, the party who
produces those documents is required to establish that
those documents proves the stand taken. In the case on
hand, wife and child failed to establish in clear terms the
earnings of the husband through the property that is
mentioned in the documents produced. However by all the
documentary evidence produced the wife and child
succeeded in establishing that the family of the husband is
well off. It will be highly difficult to hold that a person in
the family which owns a huge commercial complex will eke
out his livelihood as a driver of a tempo vehicle. However
in the light of absence of any substantive proof with
regard to the earnings of the husband, this Court is of the
view that directing him to pay a total sum of Rs.30,000/-
per month i.e., Rs.15,000/- for the wife and Rs.15,000/-
for the child is unjustifiable. At the same time husband is
liable to maintain the child and his wife who have no
source of earnings. Therefore, this Court is of the view
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
that the impugned order is required to be modified
reducing the amount awarded towards maintenance in
favour of the wife and child by Rs.5,000/- each. Therefore,
husband has to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/-
to the wife and Rs.10,000/- to the child. Thus the revision
petition is disposed of with the following:
ORDER
(i) The revision petition is allowed-in-part .
(ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of I
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru
in C.Misc.No.555/2016 dated 11.09.2019 is
modified directing the revision
petitioner/husband to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month to the first respondent/wife towards
maintenance till her lifetime or till her marriage
or till change of circumstances if any is
established.
(iii) The revision petitioner/husband is directed to
pay Rs.10,000/- per month towards
maintenance to the second respondent/child till
he attains the age of majority.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1665
RPFC No. 102 of 2020
HC-KAR
(iv) Maintenance awarded shall be paid from the
date of filing of C.Misc.No.555/2016.
(v) Revision petitioner/husband to pay all arrears
within 3 months.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46