IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 281 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

RAVI S S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. 224, 3RD CROSS, SHARADADEVI NAGAR, MYSURU -

PRESENT ADDRESS R/AT 562, 5TH MAIN, Digitally signed 5TH CROSS, JANATHANAGAR by AASEEFA PARVEEN MYSURU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN B.K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

PRATHIMA R D/O LATE RAJENDRA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 59, DASANAKOPPALU JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T P RAJENDRA KUMAR SUNGAY.,ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2024 PASSED IN Crl. Misc NO.991/2023 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, 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.Mohan B.K learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri.T.P.Rajendra Kumar learned counsel for respondent.

2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysore, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.991/2023 dated 22.04.2024, the respondent therein filed this revision petition.

3.Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus petitioner is the husband of the respondent herein. Respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-. Family Court through the impugned order directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the petition filed for dissolution of marriage, as per the agreement arrived at, petitioner is paying Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance of the respondent and again through the impugned order, a direction is issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month towards maintenance. Thus petitioner is under obligation to pay a sum of Rs.17,000/- per month in total which he is not in a position to pay. Learned counsel also states that petitioner did not receive notice in the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. by the respondent i.e. in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 991/2023 and therefore he could neither file his statement of objections nor statement of his assets and liabilities. Learned counsel thereby seeks to set aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent states that petitioner is not paying the amount as ordered by the Court in earlier proceedings also. Learned counsel states that respondent has no source of earnings and hence taking into consideration the interests of respondent, necessary orders may be passed.

6. At para 3 of the impugned order, Family Court made a mention that it issued notice to the petitioner herein through Court and RPAD but the same was not served. Hence notice was ordered through affixture and thereafter notice was sent to his present address and it was served on him personally but petitioner remained absent and hence he was placed exparte.

7. As per the version of the petitioner he did not receive the notice at all. Considering the fact that the petitioner intends to project his version regarding his financial capacity and his liability to pay maintenance, this Court is of the view that a fair opportunity is required to be given to him. Therefore this Court considers desirable to set aside the impugned order. At the same time, to protect the interests of respondent, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be directed to pay respondent a sum of Rs.8,000/- pendente lite. Therefore the revision petition is disposed of with the following:-

ORDER

i. Revision petition is allowed.

ii. The order rendered by the Court of I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, My