MR. MOHAMED, vs MRS. BI BI AYESHA,

- 1 -
RPFC No. 258 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 06 DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 258 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMED,
S/O GOWS MOHAMADEEN,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/O DOOR NO. 739, 4TH CROSS,
MG ROAD, UDAYAGIRI,
MYSURU - 570 019.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PREREET JAIN B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MRS. BI BI AYESHA,
W/O MOHAMED,
D/O KHALEEL AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
2. MASTER MOHAMMED ZOAHN
S/O MOHAMED,
AGED ABOUT 04 YEARS,
(RESPONDENT NO 2 IS A MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
AND GUARDIAN - RESPONDENT NO. 1)
Digitally
signed by
AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
BOTH THE RESPONDENTS ARE
R/O NO. 602, 1ST FLOOR,
OPPOSITE R K WELLNESS CARE,
NIMRHA MASJID, MAIN ROAD,
1ST STAGE, RAJEEV NAGARA,
MYSURU - 570 019.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAMAN VANKDARI M., ADVOCATE)

- 2 -
RPFC No. 258 of 2024
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2024
PASSED IN Crl.Misc NO.1114/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF
CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
16.10.2026
FOR ORDERS ON , COMING ON THIS DAY,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
This revision petition is the outcome of the order that
is passed by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Mysore in Crl.Misc.No.1114/2022 dated
09.10.2024.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed a petition
invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the revision petitioner
seeking the Court to direct revision petitioner to pay them
Rs.
a sum of 50,000/- per month towards maintenance.
Family Court, through the impugned order, directed
revision petitioner to pay respondent No.1 a sum of
Rs. Rs.
10,000/- and respondent No.2 a sum of 7,500/- per
month towards their maintenance. Aggrieved by the
liability thus imposed, this revision petition is filed.

- 3 -
RPFC No. 258 of 2024
3. The version of respondents as borne by record
is that the revision petitioner married respondent No.1 and
the lawful wedlock resulted in birth of respondent No.2.
Revision petitioner demanded additional dowry, subjected
respondent No.1 to mental cruelty and body shaming.
Finally, she was driven out from the matrimonial home.
Revision petitioner is having his own business, earns lakhs
of rupees and possesses properties, worth crores of
rupees. As he has totally neglected to maintain them, they
came before the Court seeking maintenance.
4. The version of the revision petitioner, on the
other hand, is that himself and respondent No.1 lived
happily for 8 to 10 months. Respondent No.1 was always
engaged in conversing over mobile and texting. He came
to know that respondent No.1 is having illicit relationship
with students of Yemenis Country and she herself
confessed said fact. Though respondent No.1 received
Rs.
2,00,000/- to give khula later she declined. Respondent
No.1 is a B'com graduate, is working in a private

- 4 -
RPFC No. 258 of 2024
organisation and thus, she is not entitled for any
maintenance.
5. Family Court, subjecting the evidence of PW1,
RW1, Exs.P1 to P17 and Exs.R1 to R22 to scrutiny came to
a conclusion that liability vests upon the revision petitioner
to maintain the respondents herein.
6. Heard Sri.Prereet Jain.B learned counsel for the
revision petitioner as well as Sri.Namam Vankdari.M
learned counsel for the respondents.
7. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for revision
petitioner submitted that this revision petition is filed
mainly disputing the quantum of maintenance and the
quantum fixed by the Family Court is exorbitant. Learned
counsel contended that respondent No.1 is an educated
woman and thus, she is capable of earning and
maintaining herself. The version of respondent No.1 that
the revision petitioner is doing business, is false and
indeed the revision petitioner is maintaining himself by
doing coolie work. Learned counsel also stated that after

- 5 -
RPFC No. 258 of 2024
dissolution of marriage with respondent No.1, revision
petitioner married another lady and begot a child.
Therefore, liability vests upon revision petitioner to
lookafter his subsequently married wife and child born
through that marriage. Learned counsel also contended
that the revision petitioner has to clear the debts and
there is heavy demand from the Banks from which he
obtained loans. Family Court has failed to appreciate and
consider the fact that the revision petitioner is in financial
distress. Learned counsel thereby sought to set aside the
impugned order.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents
submitted that it is the liability of the revision petitioner to
maintain the respondents. The revision petitioner is
running a cycle shop and a tubes shop under the name
and style "JMS Tubes" and thus, he has got good financial
capacity to maintain the respondents. Learned counsel
also stated that to defeat the claim of respondents,
petitioner obtained a coolie card by fraudulent means and
indeed there is no necessity for him to attend coolie work

- 6 -
RPFC No. 258 of 2024
and infact he never attended such coolie work. Learned
counsel thereby sought to dismiss the revision petition.
9. By the evidence produced it is abundantly clear
that the business establishment stands in the name of the
parents of revision petitioner. Respondents failed to
establish the actual occupation and earnings of the
revision petitioner. Equally, revision petitioner failed to
establish that respondent No.1 is an earning person and
that she can eke out her livelihood through those
earnings. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, the
revision petitioner being the biological father of respondent
No.2 who is a minor, liability vests upon him to maintain
respondent No.2. The fact that revision petitioner married
another lady and begot a child through her is not a
defence which can be considered to hold that he is not
liable to maintain the respondents herein. However, taking
into consideration the fact that the respondents failed in
their attempt to establish the financial status of the
revision petitioner and that he holds huge property as
contended by them and earns, this Court is of the view

- 7 -
RPFC No. 258 of 2024
that the amount fixed towards maintenance is on higher
side. It would be justifiable if the revision petitioner is
Rs.
ordered to pay respondent No.1 a sum of 7,500/- per
Rs.
month and the respondent No.2 a sum of 5,000 per
month towards their maintenance. Therefore, 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 II
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore
in Crl.Misc.No.1114/2022 dated 09.10.2024, is
modified.
iii. Revision petitioner/respondent is directed to
pay respondent No.1/petitioner No.1 a sum of
Rs.
7,500/- per month and respondent No.2/
Rs.
petitioner No.2 a sum of 5,000/- per month
towards their maintenance.
iv. All other directions issued through the
impugned order are valid and shall remain in
force.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
DS/CT:TSM