IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.216 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. GIRIJA W/O RAJASHEKHARA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/AT NO.LIG 1037, 5^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, SHARADEVINAGARA, MYSURU-570022.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUDRAPPA P., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. RAJASHEKHARA S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.2792/3, 2^ND MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, JAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570014.

…RESPONDENT (SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT, VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 28.07.2025 BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION - ABSENT)

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2023 PASSED IN Crl.MIS.586/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

The present petition is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2023 in Crl.Misc.No.586/2022 on the file of the II Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru (‘the Family Court’, for short) and award maintenance amount of Rs.25,000/- per month to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is second wife and respondent is husband.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized approximately 25 years ago at Srikanteshwara Temple, Nanjanagudu. The petitioner is the second wife of the respondent. The marriage having been solemnized with the consent of his first wife, Smt.Susheela, as no issues were born out of the first wedlock. After the marriage, the petitioner commenced her matrimonial life with the respondent in a rented house at Mysuru. Out of the said wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to three male children, including male twins during her second delivery. Out of the twin children, one male child was forcibly taken by the respondent and handed over to his first wife. Subsequent to the birth of the children, the respondent resumed cohabitation with his first wife, neglecting and ignoring the petitioner.

4. The respondent failed to provide financial assistance, neglected the education and welfare of the remaining two children residing with the petitioner, and did not pay the house rent, compelling the petitioner to work as a housemaid at various places to sustain herself and educate her two children. A panchayath was convened, wherein, it was resolved that the respondent would look after the basic needs of the petitioner and the two children, to which he agreed. However, he failed to comply with the said resolution except for paying the house rent. Despite repeated requests by the petitioner to permit her to reside with him, the respondent deserted her and failed to provide maintenance, constraining the petitioner to file a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Cr.P.C’ for short) before the Family Court seeking maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per month.

5. Upon service of notice, the respondent entered appearance before the Family Court and filed a detailed statement of objections seeking dismissal of the maintenance petition. The petitioner examined herself as PW1 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11, while the respondent examined himself as RW1 and marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3.

6. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court has framed following issues for its consideration:-

(a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get maintenance as prayed in the petition?

7. Based on the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Family Court rejected the petition filed by the 2^nd wife-petitioner under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C and held that the petitioner – wife was not entitled to maintenance from the