IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 16 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. SANTHOSH L SUVARNA

AGED 49 YEARS,

S/O LAXMAN S. SUVARNA

R/AT DOOR NO.7-64

LAXMI NIVASA,

YERMAL TENKA YERMAL

UDUPI - 574 119

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed

AND:

by AASEEFA

PARVEEN

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 1. SHWETHA SUVARNA

KARNATAKA

W/O SANTHOSH L SUVARNA

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

2. BABY SANVI S SUVARNA

D/O SANTOSH SUVARNA

AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS

3. BABY SADVI S SURAVNA

D/O SANTOSH SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY MOTHER SMT. SHWETHA SUVARNA ALL ARE R/AT 12-3G, SHWETHA NIVASA NEAR JAYANAGAR

1^ST CROSS, THADAMBAIL SURATHKAL MANGALORE - 575 014 …RESPONDENTS (R1 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R16)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.02.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.51/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, D.K., MANGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.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. Trivikram.S learned counsel for the revision petitioner who appears through video conference.

2. Though notice was served upon the respondents, respondents did not choose to contest the matter.

3. Challenge in this revision petition is the order that is rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru in Crl.Misc.Case No.51/2020 dated 21.02.2022.

4. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The revision petitioner is the husband of the first respondent and the father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. 5. Respondents filed a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking maintenance of Rs.70,000/- per month and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/-. The Court which dealt with the case rendered orders holding that 1^st respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and respondent Nos.2 and 3 Rs.20,000/- per month each towards maintenance and they are also entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/. Aggrieved by the order thus passed, the present revision petition is filed.

6. Arguing on merits of the matter, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner is earning not more than Rs.80,000/- per annum and hence he is unable to pay the amount as ordered by the Trial Court towards maintenance. Learned counsel submits that the income certificate issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka is being produced and considering the said certificate, the impugned order may be modified by decreasing the amount that is awarded as maintenance.

7. The case of the respondents as projected before the Trial Court is that the revision petitioner was employed as a Marketing Executive at Muscat and he failed to look after their welfare and there by neglected them. Their case is also that the revision petitioner is working at I.T. Corporate Solutions at Bengaluru as Project Manager and he is earning more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month and further he is having moveable and immovable properties worth more than Rs.50,00,000/- at Yermal, Udupi.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly concedes that the revision petitioner failed to file the statement of assets and liabilities before the Trial Court. He also concedes that the revision petitioner even failed to file his objections or counter to the petition filed by the respondents herein claiming maintenance. He also states that the revision petitioner failed to cross examine PW-1. Thus, it is clear that the revision petitioner failed to contest the matter though made his appears before the Trial Court. No reasons accorded as to why the revision petitioner did not choose to file his objections and statement of asset and liabilities.