Dismissed¶48

Sri G Prakash v. Smt Venila @ Veda

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026RPFC/138/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), RPFC No. 138 of 2021 (NC: 2026:KHC:6790), Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, decided 05.02.2026 — dismisses husband's Section 19(4) Family Courts Act revision against the Family Court (Mysuru) order dt. 02.12.2019 in C.MISC.No.402/2019 awarding ₹5,000/- per month each to wife and two minor children under Section 125 Cr.P.C.; amount held not excessive; petitioner adduced no evidence of incapacity (no cross-examination, no material) nor of wife's independent tailoring income; respondents' side unrepresented at hearing. Keywords: adequacy of maintenance; father's duty to maintain minor children; burden of proof on maintenance payer; dismissal of RPFC.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; the Family Court award of ₹5,000/- per month to each respondent stands, as the revision petition is dismissed.

Sri G Prakash Vs Smt Venila @ Veda — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the Family Court award of ₹5,000/- per month to each respondent stands, as the revision petition is dismissed.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance of ₹5,000/- per month granted by the Family Court to each respondent is excessive such as to warrant interference through the revision petition. +1 more

¶44

Court's answer

The maintenance amount of ₹5,000/- granted by the Family Court to each respondent cannot be termed to be excessive.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

There are no merits in the revision petition.

¶45

Key takeaways

Respondents No.2 and 3 being minor children, it is the responsibility of the petitioner, being their father, to maintain them.ratio¶39
Apart from filing his statement of objections, the petitioner neither cross-examined the respondents' witness nor produced any material in support of his version that due to family constraints and unemployment he cannot maintain the respondents; his plea of inability to pay therefore went unsubstantiated.ratio¶37
The petitioner produced no material to show that respondent No.1 is a tailor by profession having her own source of livelihood.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Maintenance — S.125 Cr.P.C. — revision under S.19(4) of the Family Courts Act — husband (agriculturist) challenged the IV Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru order dated 02.12.2019 in C.MISC.No.402/2019, which partly allowed the maintenance petition of his wife (respdt. No.1) and two minor sons (respdts. No.2 & 3) granting ₹5,000/- per month to each. Petitioner pleaded financial hardship (heavy spend on sister's cancer treatment, upkeep of aged father) and alleged respondent No.1 is a tailor supported by her parents; however, apart from filing statement of objections he neither cross-examined the respondents' witness nor produced any material on his means or hers. Holding: it is the father's responsibility to maintain the minor children; ₹5,000/- per month to each respondent cannot be termed excessive; no merits in the revision — dismissed. (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha; decided 05.02.2026.)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 138 OF 2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI G PRAKASH S/O P GOWNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURIST R/O VIDYANAGAR, BANASHANKARI LAYOUT, BEHIND OLD COURT, HOSADURGA -577 527, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶10

PRESENTLY R/AT: FLAT NO. 239/3, (J-PART # 5/A-1) FABRO ENGINEER, OWNER, Digitally signed by HEBBAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH MYSURU-570 001. Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. AISHWARYA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRANEETH G.N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT VENILA @ VEDA W/O G PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.5082 2ND STAGE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

4TH CROSS VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 017.

¶17

YUVARAJ, S/O G PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT VENILA @ VEDA, W/O G PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.5082 2ND STAGE, 4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 017.

¶18

RUTHIK, S/O G. PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT VENILA @ VEDA, W/O G PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O NO.5082, 2ND STAGE, 4TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, MYSURU-570 017.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHEHINSHA ALI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3 (ABSENT))

¶20

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2019 PASSED IN C.MISC.No.402/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C. FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the submission made by Ms.Aishwarya Hegde, who represented Sri Praneeth G.N., learned counsel on record for petitioner, on 23.01.2026. There was no representation on respondents' side on that day. To give fair opportunity to the respondents to make their submission, the matter was adjourned. However, even on this day there is no representation on respondents' side.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the order rendered by the Court of IV Additional Principal Family Judge, Mysuru in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.402/2019 dated 02.12.2019, this revision petition is filed.

¶29

There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2 and 3.

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Respondents filed a petition against the petitioner herein seeking the Court to direct the petitioner to pay respondent No.1 a sum of ₹20,000/- and respondents No.2 and 3 a sum of ₹10,000/- each per month towards maintenance. As per the version of respondents, petitioner is maintaining 'Fabro Engineering Works' at Hebbal Industrial Layout, Mysuru and thereby he earns ₹1,00,000/- per month. He also holds agricultural lands and house at Hosudurga, through which he earns ₹25,000/- per month. The Family Court directed the petitioner herein to pay each of the respondents ₹5,000/per month towards maintenance.

¶33

The submission that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has got no means to pay such huge sum. Learned counsel contends that though legally the petitioner is liable to maintain the respondents, in the light of his financial position and family constraints he cannot pay any amount to them. The learned counsel submitted that the sister of the petitioner

¶34

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6790 RPFC No. 138 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

suffered with cancer for considerable period and finally she passed away. Petitioner spent lot of amount for her treatment. Also petitioner has to look after his aged father. On the other hand respondent No.1 is a Tailor and she has got support of her parents.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny the fact that the petitioner, except filing his statement of objections to the petition filed by the respondents herein seeking maintenance, did not choose either to crossexamine the respondents' witness or produce any material in support of his version that due to family constraints and unemployment he cannot maintain the respondents. Equally, he has not produced any material to show that respondent No.1 is a tailor by profession and she has got her own source of livelihood.

¶38