Sri Chinnappareddy v. Smt Anjinamma L

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 238 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. CHINNAPPAREDDY, S/O LATE. DEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NO. UPPARLAHALLI VILLAGE, KOTAGAL POST, AMBAJIDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABLLAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DEVARAJA .S N.,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT ANJINAMMA L., W/O CHINNAPPAREDDY, D/O ANGADI GOWRAMMA. AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶2KUMRI. LOWKYA REDDY, D/O CHINNAPPAREDDY AND ANJINAMMA, AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS

¶3ABHAY REDDY, S/O CHINNAPPAREDDY, AND ANJINAMMA AGED ABOUT 05 YEARS, by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40657 RPFC(No.(238(of(2025 CNR:(KAHC010553072025

4., AMOG,REDDY, S/O,CHINNAPPAREDDY,, AND,ANJINAMMA,, AGED,ABOUT,05,YEARS,., THE,RESPONDENT,NO.2,TO,4,ARE,MINORS, REPRESENTED,BY,HER,NATURAL,GUARDIAN, MOTHER,,THE,FIRST,RESPONDENT,HEREIN,, SMT.,ANJINAMMA,L, ALL,ARE,RESIDING,AT,, PATARENAHALLI,VILLAGE,,, AND,POST,,NANDI,HOBLI,,, CHIKKABALLAPUR,TALUK,AND,DISTRICT., …RESPONDENTS, (V/O.,DATED,06.04.2026,,, NOTICE,TO,R1,IS,HELD,SUFFICIENT;, R-2,TO,R4,ARE,MINORS,REP.,BY,R1), , THIS, RPFC, FILED, UNDER, SEC.19(4), OF, THE, FAMILY, COURTS, ACT.,, AGAINST, THE, ORDER, DATED, 19.06.2025, PASSED,IN,CRL.MISC,NO.1/2025,ON,THE,FILE,OF,PRINCIPAL, JUDGE,, FAMILY, COURT,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,, PARTLY, ALLOWING,PETITION,FILED,UNDER,ORDER,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,

ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Devraja S.N., learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶2Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chickballapur, in Crl.Misc.No.1/2025 dated

19.06.2025. Though notice was served upon respondents, respondents have not chosen to contest the case.

¶3Respondent No.1 being the wife, respondent No.2, the minor daughter, respondents No.3 and 4 the minor sons of the petitioner herein filed a petition invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance of ₹40,000/- per month. The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chickballapur decided the case on merits and rendered orders on 19.06.2025 directing petitioner herein to pay respondents No.1 to 4 a sum of ₹10,000/- i.e. ₹2,500/- each. Aggrieved by the liability thus imposed, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no source of earnings. He used to eke out his livelihood by doing coolie work and due to ill health he stopped doing that work. On the other hand respondent No.1 maintains a beauty parlour and earns. Therefore, she can maintain herself as well as the children who are residing with her. Family Court without discussing about the merits of the matter and considering the financial status of the petitioner, directed petitioner to pay respondents a sum of ₹2,500/- each and aggrieved by the same, this revision petition is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the revision petition.

¶5As per the version of respondents, petitioner earns a sum of ₹1,50,000/- per month through his agricultural activities and by maintaining a poultry farm. However, respondents failed to produce any substantive proof to that effect except Exs.P.9 and P.10 - RTC Extracts. Likewise, though petitioner contends before this

Court that respondent No.1 by running a beauty parlour earns substantial amount, he failed to produce any proof to that effect. Petitioner filed his statement of objections before the Family Court. However did not produce any evidence to establish his contentions that respondent No.1/wife is gainfully occupied and that she can maintain herself. There is no proof whatsoever to establish the alleged disability on part of the petitioner to attend any work of his choice and earn.

¶6There is no denial of the fact that the second respondent was aged around seven years and respondents No.3 and 4, five years as on the date of filing of the petition claiming maintenance. It is the bounden duty of the petitioner being the father of those children to look after their welfare. Family Court, thus taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner, directed petitioner to pay respondents a sum of ₹2,500/- each towards maintenance. Said amount is not excessive.

Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this revision petition. Therefore, following ORDER

i) The revision petition is dismissed.

ii) As the Family Court has not stated anything with regard to the time limit, this Court is of the view that necessary order in that regard is required to be passed.

iii) Thus, petitioner shall pay respondent No.1/wife a sum of ₹2,500/- per month from the date of filing of Crl.Misc.Case No.1/2025 till the life of respondent No.1 or until further orders by the competent Court.

iv) Petitioner shall pay respondent No.2/ daughter a sum of ₹2,500/- per month till her marriage or till she becomes financially independent or till further orders by the competent Court.

v) Petitioner shall pay respondents No.3 and 4 a sum of ₹2,500/- per month each till they attain the age of majority or till the order is modified by the competent Court.

vi) The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44