THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.No.142/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.PC FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV ORDER

This revision petition is filed by the wife of the respondent seeking enhancement of maintenance amount. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent is not disputed. The petitioner on the ground of cruelty and desertion, is compelled to live separately. Therefore, as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C., the Family Court has awarded maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the petitioner. The maintenance amount granted by the Family Court is very meager. Therefore, the wife has filed this revision petition seeking enhancement.

Wife filed Crl.Misc.No.142/2021 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking monthly maintenance of Rs.50,000/- and the Family Court in terms of the impugned order directed the husband to pay the wife a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month towards maintenance along with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

During the pendency of Crl.Misc.No.142/2021, the husband filed MC No.1073/2022 for dissolution of marriage and the same was allowed and the marriage was dissolved on 05.06.2025.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the marriage between them was solemnized on 29.09.2009 and was registered on 27.01.2020 before the Registrar of Marriage, Mysuru under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. At the time of marriage, the respondent was working as Junior Technical Officer at BSNL, Mysuru and now, he is retired and getting pension of Rs.55,000/- per month and Rs.10,000/- per month as rent from the House at Kuvempu Nagara, Channarayapattana. She contends that the Family Court has not properly considered the salary of the respondent and has granted meager maintenance amount. Hence, prays to allow the petition.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – husband submits that he has performed the marriage of daughter, born out of the first marriage of the petitioner – wife and looked after his wife till 5th September, 2021. By availing loan and his savings, he purchased a site and constructed a house near Airport. As he being a retired person is struggling to maintain the family and clearing the loan. He being a senior citizen is suffering from old age ailments and pension amount is not sufficient for his food, medicine, doctor consultation etc. He submits that the petitioner – wife is running a real estate business, working at an advocate office and earning income. He contends that the wife also owns properties from her first husband. Hence, he prays to dismiss the petition by setting aside the impugned order.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

It is undisputed fact that the marital relationship between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent is valid, though they are presently living separately due to disputes and no children were born out of the said marriage. The petitioner No.2, being the daughter of the petitioner No.1 through her previous marriage, is not the biological child of the respondent and is receiving a share from her natural father; hence, the respondent is not legally liable to maintain her. The evidence on record, including affidavits and documents produced by both parties, reveals that the respondent is a retired employee receiving pension and deriving income from land properties, though he has not fully disclosed his financial details, leading to an adverse inference regarding his means of income. The material further establishes that the respondent neglected and failed to maintain the petitioner No.1 despite having sufficient means and that multiple civil and criminal d