IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 141 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

NATESHAN SUNDAR

S/O LATE M NATESHA MUDALIAR

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

R/AT NO.168, 1^ST FLOOR

SEPPINGS ROAD,

SHIVAJINAGAR

BENGALURU -560 001

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S.G.BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. P.PADMINI PRIYA

W/O NATESHAN SUNDER

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

Digitally signed NO.510, 5^TH CROSS

by MEGHA

C WING, SKYLINE APARTMENTS

MOHAN

Location: HIGH CHANDRA LAYOUT

COURT OF

KARNATAKA BANGALORE -560 040

PRESENTLY R/AT

FLAT NO.201, II FLOOR

PLOT NO.571

DASHARATHA RESIDENCY

RAILWAY HOUSE BUILDING

CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED

MALALTHALLI VILLAGE

YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI

BENGALURU NORTH TALUK -560 056

2. BABY MEENA D/O NATESHAN SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS NO.510, 5^TH CROSS C WING, SKYLINE APARTMENTS CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE -560 040 PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO. 201 II FLOOR, PLOT NO.571 DASHARATHA RESIDENCY RAILWAY HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED MALALTHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK -560 056

3. SAI GANESH S/O NATESHAN SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS NO.510, 5^TH CROSS C WING, SKYLINE APARMENTS CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE -560 040 PRESENTLY R/AT FLAT NO.201 II FLOOR, PLOT NO.571 DASHARATHA RESIDENCY RAILWAY HOUSE BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED MALALTHALLI VILLAGE YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK -560 056 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NATESHAN MURTHY, ADVOCATE AND SRI.D.SUBRAMANI, ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC FILED U/S. 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2023 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.299/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.125(1)(a)(b) OF CR.P.C.

FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

29.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

CAV ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.299/2014 dated 27.09.2023 by the IV Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month from October 2018 till the date of order and Rs.5,000/- each to both the children from the date of petition till they attain majority and further, the Family Court had observed that the wife is entitled for monthly maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the date of the order till her lifetime or till she remarries, the petitioner/husband is before this Court questioning the order.

2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the husband submits that when a petition is filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, the wife has to state that she has no means to maintain herself. In this case, there is no such averment in the entire petition. It is submitted that she is running the family business and she is having sufficient income. The wife is a double graduate and in fact, the husband is not qualified and educated like her. In spite of being educated and qualified lady, she is not working and she is depending upon the husband. It is submitted that the facts that were stated by the wife before the Family Court, particularly, the fact that she is not earning is not a correct statement and she is not entitled for any maintenance. It is submitted that he has been complying with the orders passed in the Domestic Violence case and earlier orders that were passed. The children have attained majority and the Family Court had granted the maintenance only till they attain majority and the husband is not questioning the same. As far as the wife is concerned, it is submitted that she is not entitled for maintenance.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband had relied on the judgment arising out of Criminal Revision Petition No.1324/2025 dated 19.06.2023, the judgments in case of Zubedabi Vs. Abdul Khader, 11978 CRI L J 1555, Chaturbuj Vs. Sita