IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 R BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.191 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. SAVITHA S @ PARVATHI W/O C.T DASAPPA D/O SIDDALINGAIAH

40 YEARS

2. SRI. ARYA.D. AGED 12 YEARS, S/O C.T. DASAPPA, 3. SRI. MANJUNATHA.D, AGED 10 YEARS, S/O C.T. DASAPPA, PETITIONERS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS Digitally signed REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN by MOTHER SMT. SAVITHA.S. @ PARVATHI, VIJAYALAKSHMI PETITIONER NO.1.

B N Loca tion: HIGH ALL ARE RESIDING AT COURT OF

11^TH ‘A’ CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD, KAR NATAKA MAHALAKSHMINAGAR, BATAWADI, TUMAKURU-572 101.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYANNA G.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. C.T. DASAPPA S/O LATE YAJAMAN THIMMAPPA AGED 42 YEARS WORKING AS POSTAL ASSISTANT HEAD POST OFFICE NEAR D.C. OFFICE TUMAKURU 572 101.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SURESH P., ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.07.2024 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.132/2020 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

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

CAV ORDER

This RPFC is filed by the wife under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in Crl.Misc.No.132/2020. By the impugned order, the Family Court has partly allowed the petition filed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., directing the respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.8,000/- each and litigation expense of Rs.5,000/-.

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

The petitioner is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 07.06.2012 at Gayathri Kalyana Mantapa, Kunigal Road, Tumakuru. Out of the wedlock, two male children, namely Aarya and Manjunatha, were born. It is the case of the petitioner that after about one year of marriage, disputes arose between the parties due to ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her at the matrimonial home. The respondent’s mother allegedly insulted the petitioner and the circumstances became unconducive for her to reside with the respondent. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to live separately. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. The respondent, in turn, filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which came to be decreed in his favour. However, the said decree was never executed. The Family Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petitioner No.1 – wife’s claim for maintenance mainly on the ground that she had deserted the respondent without sufficient cause and in view of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights and partly allowed the petition directing the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.8,000/- per month to each of the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 from the date of petition till they attain majority and also directed the respondent to pay litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

3. On hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court vide order dated 30.01.2025 has allowed I.A.No.1/2024 filed for interim maintenance by the petitioner No.1 – wife and directed the respondent – husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the petitioner No.1 – wife till further order passed by this Court from the date of filing of the petition and also directed to pay arrears of maintenance to the petitioner within two months. Respondent – husband is also directed to pay the maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to each of the children as ordered in Crl.Misc.No.132/2020 vide order dated 24.07.2024. The respondent – husband on 09.09.2025 has filed a memo along with Demand Draft for having paid an amount of Rs.45,000/- to the pe