Sri v Manjunatha, Vs Smt N Amaravathi

BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GRAND FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, K.V. NANJUNDA GOWDA S/O VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/OF KAMDENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK, PIN -563 103.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. BHARATHI M., ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 -

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:32067 RPFC No. 112 of 2023

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2023 PASSED CRL.MISC. NO.51/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.Misc.No.51/2021 dated 29.03.2023 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kolar, whereby the Family Court had granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each to the children, who are aged 13 and 16 years now, the father is before this Court.

¶29

It is the case that the mother had filed Crl.Misc.No.51/2021 seeking maintenance for the children. During the pendency of the petition, the mother died. Considering the fact that the father is having immovable properties and he has failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities, the Family Court has drawn an adverse inference and granted maintenance of an amount Rs.5,000/- per month each

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32067 RPFC No. 112 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

to the children and also litigation expenses of an amount of Rs.10,000/-.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father

¶34

submits that in fact the father had filed G & WC petition as the grandparents are old and they are not in a position to take care of the children. Though the Family Court had granted visitation, the same was not followed. Now, the children are admitted in a government school and they are not properly taken care of. It is submitted that if the children are sent to the father, he is ready to take care of their well being in all aspects. It is further submitted that as per the order passed by the Family Court, the father is paying the maintenance. It is submitted that the maintenance amount granted by the Family Court is on the higher side and the same needs to be reduced.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/ children submits that earlier he was paying maintenance of an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month each and after filing the RPFC he is not paying the maintenance amount. It is submitted that the grandparents are taking care of the children and the father is not evincing any interest in their welfare. It is submitted that

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32067 RPFC No. 112 of 2023

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

the father is seeking custody, he had already filed the G & WC petition that would be taken care of by the Family Court in the pending proceedings and the same cannot be decided here. As the mother is no more, it is the obligation of the father to take care of the children.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. Undisputedly, there are lands in the name of the petitioner’s father and the petitioner is the only son. The submission made before this Court that the father is ready to take care of all the expenses, he is ready to join them in a private school and take care of them shows that the father has enough resources to take care of the children and as the mother is no more, the maintenance amount of Rs.10,000/- per month granted by the Family Court, in the considered opinion of this Court is not excessive. Further, about

¶40

the custody and other issues of the children, this Court cannot consider that aspect in a petition filed against grant of maintenance. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶41