B H Harish Kumar @ B H Ambarish v. Smt A N Sanjana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.69 OF 2025 BETWEEN: B. H. HARISH KUMAR @ B. H. AMBARISH S/O. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/O. JINKE BACHAHALLI VILLAGE DODDA TUMKUR POST DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-562 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI VENUGOPALA G. M., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT. A. N. SANJANA W/O. B. H. HARISH KUMAR @ B. H. AMBARISH D/O. G. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶2KUM. DHANYASHREE H. D/O. B. H. HARISH KUMAR @ B. H. AMBARISH AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS SINCE THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER-CUM NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. A. N. SANJANA by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:39150 RPFC(No.(69(of(2025 CNR:(KAHC010168412025 BOTH,ARE,R/AT,JINKE,BACHAHALLI,VILLAGE, DODDA,TUMKUR,POST, DODDABALLAPUR,TALUK, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT, NOW,RESIDING,AT, AMMANALLUR,VILLAGE, VEMGAL,HOBLI, KOLAR,TALUK-563,102, …RESPONDENTS, (R-1,IS,SERVED,, ,R-2,IS,MINOR,REPRESENTED,BY,R-1), , THIS, RPFC, IS, FILED, UNDER, SEC.19(4), OF, THE,FAMILY, COURTS, ACT.,, AGAINST, THE, ORDER, DATED, 12.09.2024, PASSED,IN,CRL.MISC,NO.132/2022,ON,THE,FILE,OF,PRINCIPAL, JUDGE,,FAMILY,COURT,,KOLAR,,PARTLY,ALLOWING,PETITION, FILED,UNDER,ORDER,125,OF,CR.P.C,FOR,MAINTENANCE., , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, HON'BLE,DR.,JUSTICE,CHILLAKUR,SUMALATHA, ORAL(ORDER Heard, Sri.Venukopala.G.M, learned, counsel, for, the, petitioner., Respondents, have, not, chosen, to, contest, the, case.,Proof,of,service,of,notice,is,on,record.,,

2., Being, aggrieved, by, the, liability, imposed, through, the, orders, that, were, rendered, by, the, Court, of,

Principal Judge Family Court, Kolar dated 12.09.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.132/2022, this revision petition is filed.

¶3It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is the wife and respondent No.2 is the minor daughter of the petitioner herein. Respondents filed a petition invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the petitioner to pay them a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance. The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar decided the case and rendered orders directing petitioner to pay respondent No.1/wife a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and respondent No.2/daughter a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner suffers with skin disease and thus, he is unable to do anything. Respondent No.1/wife is a B'com graduate and she works somewhere. Therefore, there is no

necessity for her to claim maintenance. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the revision petition.

¶5No material whatsoever was produced by the petitioner to show that respondent No.1/wife is a working woman. At para of 22 of the impugned order, Family Court highlighted the aspect regarding the earnings of respondent No.1/wife and the points elicited during the course of cross-examination, wherein she stated that she earns Rs.50/- to Rs.60/- per day by doing coolie work.

¶6The Court also discussed with regard to the health condition of the petitioner and the ailments he projected. The documents he produced reveals that he suffered with stones in the kidney and took treatment for the same and that he suffers with skin disease. Liability vests upon the petitioner to maintain his child, who is under the care and custody of her mother. Family Court taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances directed petitioner to pay respondent

No.1/wife a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month and respondent No.2/daughter a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards their maintenance. Amount thus granted is neither excessive nor exorbitant.

¶7Family Court discussed each and every aspect of the case including the agricultural land which the family of the petitioner is holding and the status of parties. This Court does not find any grounds to interfere with the observations made or the findings given. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the revision petition lacks merits. Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20