IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.21 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

SMT. SHAZAMA @ SHAZIA W/O KHALEELULLA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.461/A, ILYAS NAGAR J P NAGAR POST, PIPELINE ROAD, Digitally signed BENGALURU. by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAGADEESH H.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. KHALEELULLA, S/O SHAIK MAQBOOL SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT LOKSAR, KOTTATI HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401.

…RESPONDENT (V/O. DATED 18.07.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT.1894 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION AND MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2018 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.355/2012 BY THE HON’BLE III ADDL.PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.

FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.K.L.Sreenivas, learned counsel for petitioner. Notice sent to respondent returned with an endorsement unclaimed. Respondent failed to contest the case.

2. This revision petition is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc.No.355/2012 dated 02.01.2018. Petitioner/wife filed a petition invoking Section 125 Cr.P.C., seeking the Court to direct respondent to pay herself and her child a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month towards maintenance. Family Court through the impugned order directed respondent to pay petitioner a sum of Rs.2,000 per month and the child Rs.1,500/- per month towards their maintenance. Projecting that the said sum granted towards maintenance is grossly low, this revision petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that respondent owns agricultural land and he is a tailor by profession. Petitioner has got no source of earnings, besides that she has to maintain the child. Respondent totally refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner and the child. The sum granted towards maintenance in favour of the petitioner and the child is not sufficient. Petitioner cannot be expected to live and lead her life with Rs.2,000/- per month and likewise the child with Rs.1,500/- per month. Therefore, allowing the revision petition, the amount granted towards maintenance may be enhanced.

4. Petitioner failed to produce any evidence before the Family Court to establish the financial status of respondent. Having discussed the merits of the case, Family Court came to a conclusion that petitioner is entitled to Rs.2,000/- per month towards maintenance and the child Rs.1,500/- per month. However, as rightly contended by learned counsel for petitioner, the sum awarded towards maintenance is grossly low and will not be sufficient. However, having considered the fact that petitioner failed to produce any proof with regard to the occupation and earnings of the respondent and further taking into account that the plea of ill-health projected by the respondent was not proved before the Family Court and also with an observation that liability vests upon respondent to maintain his wife and child, this Court considers desirable to direct respondent to pay petitioner a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and the child a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards maintenance. Hence, the revision petition is disposed of with the following

ORDER

i) Revision petition is allowed in part.

ii) The order that is rendered by the Court of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.355/2012 dated

02.01.2018 is modified.

iii) Respondent shall pay petitioner a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance till her lifetime or until further orders by the competent Court.

iv) Respondent shall also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-

per month to the child by name Azra Fathima,