##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET. FAMILY COURT NO.231 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SHUBHRATH A.R., S/O REVAPPA. A, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SOFTWARE ENGINEER, RESIDENT NO. 24, 5TH CROSS, BEHIND KAMAKYA THEATRE, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, KAMAKYA LAYOUT, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 085 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. T.R.RAJESHWARI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by AASEEFA CHAITHRA M., PARVEEN W/O SHUBHRATH A.R Location: HIGH COURT OF D/O B.S. MANJUNATHA, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O SRI. HEMAGIRI MALLIKARJUNA NILAYA

6TH CROSS, NILAMBIKA MARG KALYANA NAGARA JYOTHI NAGARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY.

…RESPONDENT (BY SMT. K. VANI., ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 4.07.2025 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.172/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.144 OF B.N.S.S., FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.09.2026, COMING ON THIS DAY, PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

CAV ORDER

This revision petition is the outcome of the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in Crl.Misc.No.172/2024 dated

04.07.2025.

2. As the relationship between the parties is not in dispute, the revision petitioner will hereinafter be referred to as 'husband' and the respondent as 'wife'.

3. Wife filed a petition invoking Section 144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (for short 'BNSS'), seeking the Family Court to direct her husband to pay her a sum of Rs.85,000/- per month towards her maintenance. Family Court evaluating the evidence of PW1, RW1, Exs.P1 to P59 and Exs.R1 to R24 came to a conclusion that though wife is an employee and earns Rs.54,700/- per month, as the income of the husband is more than the income of the wife, she is liable to be maintained by her husband. Exhibiting that opinion, Family Court directed husband to pay wife a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month towards her maintenance. Aggrieved by the decision thus taken and the liability imposed, husband filed this revision petition.

4. Heard Smt.T.R. Raja Rajeshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though Smt.K.Vani, is on record representing the respondent, learned counsel has not chosen to submit her contentions.

5. The version of the wife as per the material available on record is that her husband suffers from Beta Thaluassemia, there was Gall Bladder removal and he is acute diabetic, but suppressing his health condition, he married her. Her version is also that she was harassed by her husband demanding dowry and that he ill-treated her.

6. On the other hand, husband contended that all the marriage expenses were borne by him, but wife never performed her duties and he had to attend all household work and also the office work. Wife cultivated the habit of watching mobile all the time and thereby she neglected him. She never allowed him to visit his parents and accused him for talking to his cousins. She always exhibited psychotic and aggressive behaviour.

7. So far as the financial status of the parties is concerned, wife contended that her husband works as Engineer and earns Rs.40,00,000/- per annum. Husband on the other hand took a plea that wife is a B.E. Graduate in Computer Science and she works with Lion Bridge Technologies Private Limited and she earns Rs.10,00,000/-

per annum.

8. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submitted that respondent/wife forced petitioner/husband to leave his parents and live with her parents at Chikkamagaluru. When petitioner/husband refused to leave his aged parents, she started harassing the petitioner/husband. Respondent/wife never took care of the house and she never attended household chores. Petitioner, apart from attending his duties, was cooking at house and was