Sri T Balan Vs Smt Manjula P — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri T Balan Vs Smt Manjula P — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to either side; both revision petitions were dismissed and the Family Court's direction to the husband to pay ₹30,000/- per month maintenance to the wife remains undisturbed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance awarded to the wife by the Family Court (₹30,000/- per month) calls for interference: the wife claiming enhancement to ₹1,00,000/- per month, and the husband contending that she is entitled to no maintenance at all. +1 more

Court's answer

The sum of ₹30,000/- per month granted towards the wife's maintenance is neither excessive nor exorbitant, having been fixed on the basis of the husband's financial status.

Ratio / Principle

The husband failed to establish that the wife can maintain herself, and the wife failed to establish that the sum granted is on the lower side or that she is entitled to a higher sum.

Key takeaways

There are no grounds in these revision petitions to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Family Court; both revision petitions deserved to be dismissed.ratio¶¶60
No material whatsoever was produced by the husband to show that the wife maintains a private road at Ooty, charges for its use and collects money, or has any other source of earnings.ratio¶¶57
Providing shelter alone is not sufficient; it is for the husband to look after the wife by providing food, proper clothing, medical facilities etc.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha, J.) dismissed two cross revision petitions under S.19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenging the order dated 15.02.2020 of the IV Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.Case No.638/2017 under S.125 Cr.P.C., whereby the husband was directed to pay his estranged wife ₹30,000/- per month maintenance, the claim against the adult sons having been dismissed (not agitated by either side). The wife sought enhancement to ₹1,00,000/- per month, citing the husband's five houses, five cars and landed property and her medical needs; the husband sought setting aside of the order, alleging she resided in his house and earned from maintaining a private road at Ooty. Held: (i) no material proved any income of the wife from the road or any other source; (ii) providing shelter alone is not sufficient — the husband must provide food, proper clothing and medical facilities; (iii) the ₹30,000/- per month award, pegged to the husband's financial status, is neither excessive nor exorbitant, and neither side established grounds warranting revisional interference. Both revision petitions dismissed (order dated 10.06.2026).

NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 174 OF 2021 C/W REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 145 OF 2020

IN RPFC No. 174/2021:

BETWEEN:

SMT. MANJULA, W/O SRI. T. BALAN, D/O SRI H. PUTTASWAMY GOWDA, RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM, PRAKASHAPURAM, KETHI VILLAGE, OOTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT-643001.

…PETITIONER

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. Y.K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.Y. K. NARAYANA SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI. T. BALAN, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, S/O SRI. THIMMEGOWDA,

SRI. B. GURUMURTHY S/O SRI. T. BALAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

HC-KAR

SRI. LAKSHMINARAYAN, S/O SRI. T. BALAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

RESPONDENTS NO. 1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT "GURULAKSHMI NIVAS", NO.11/F, 1ST BLOCK, MADHUVANA LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA, 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570023.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. ARCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED IN C.MIS.638/2017 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.

IN RPFC NO. 145/2020:

BETWEEN:

SRI. T. BALAN, S/O SRI THIMMEGOWDA, AGED 73 YEARS, R/AT: "GURULAKSHMI NIVAS" NO. 11//F 1 BLOCK MADHUVANA LAYOUT, SRIRAMPURA 23^RD STAGE, MYSURU - 570023.

...PETITIONER

(BY SMT. ARCHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV G., ADVOCATE)

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

HC-KAR

AND:

SMT. MANJULA P., ESTRANGED W/O SRI T BALAN AGE 68 YEARS, R/A SHREE NILAYA PRKASHPURAM, KETTI VILLAGE, OOTY, TAMILNADU - 643215.

SRI. B. GURUMURTHY, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. SRI T. BALAN,

SRI LAKSHMINARAYAN AGE 36 YEARS, S/O. SRI. T. BALAN,

RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT: GURULAKSHMI NIVAS NO 11/F, 1 BLOCK MADHUVANA LAYOUT SRIRAMPURA , 23RD STAGE, MYSURU - 570023.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. Y.K. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.Y K NARAYANA SHARMA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH,

V/O. DATED 10.06.2026)

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2020 PASSED IN C.MIS.638/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU, PARTLY

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

HC-KAR

ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR, ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. Y.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in RPFC No.174/2021, who is representing the respondents in RPFC No.145/2020. Also heard Ms.Archana, who represents Sri.Bhargav G., learned counsel for respondents in RPFC No.174/2021, who is representing the petitioner in RPFC No.145/2020.

2. These two revision petitions arise out of the order that is rendered by the Court of IV Additional Principal Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Misc.Case No.638/2017 dated 15.02.2020. For the sake of convenience of discussion, parties to the proceedings in both the writ petitions will hereinafter be referred to as wife, husband and children. Wife filed Crl.Misc.Case No.638/2017 against her husband and children claiming maintenance of ₹1,00,000/- per month. Family Court

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

HC-KAR

through the impugned order directed husband to pay wife a sum of ₹30,000/- per month towards maintenance. The case against children stood dismissed. Dismissal of the case against the children is not agitated either by the wife or the husband in these revision petitions. While the contention of the wife is that she is entitled to a higher sum as maintenance, the version of the husband is that the wife is not entitled for any maintenance.

3. Arguing the matter, learned counsel who represents the wife contended that the marriage was solemnized in the year 1974. Wife did not beget children for considerable period. She gave birth to his elder son in the year 1981 and to the younger son in the year 1984. They led marital life for about 30 years. Husband maintained multiple illicit relationships, due to which wife could not stay with her husband and thereby she left the matrimonial home. Husband filed a petition seeking decree of divorce, but it was dismissed on merits. Wife has no source of earnings. Elder son is a Doctor and younger son having completed his M.B.A., is working in a company. Wife needs lot of amount for her treatment, medicines and maintenance. Husband is having five houses, he maintains five cars and he is

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

HC-KAR

in possession of huge landed property. To meet all her requirements, wife needs ₹1,00,000/- per month. But Family Court granted a meager sum of ₹30,000/towards maintenance and therefore modifying the order passed, the sum claimed may be granted.

4. Per contra, learned counsel who represents the husband submitted that wife left the matrimonial home without justifiable cause. It is the husband who looked after all the necessities of the children and performed their marriages. Wife lives in the house of the husband. Furthermore, wife maintains one private road at Ooty. The vehicles passing on the road should pay for the use of said road and thereby she earns a lot. Thus, there is no necessity for her to claim any maintenance from the husband and therefore the order passed by the Family Court directing husband to pay wife a sum of ₹30,000/- per month towards maintenance is required to be set aside.

5. No material whatsoever was produced by the husband to show that wife maintains one private road at Ooty and that she charges for use of said road and collects money. Likewise no material was produced to show that wife has got

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

HC-KAR

any other source of earnings. Providing shelter itself is not sufficient. It is for the husband to look after the wife by providing food, proper clothing, medical facilities etc.,. Family Court in the impugned order discussed at length with regard to the reasons due to which wife is residing separately and the relationship of husband with other women. Family Court has also extracted the findings given in that regard in Ex.P12 judgment. Also discussing about the financial capacity of the husband, Family Court directed husband to pay wife a sum of ₹30,000/- per month towards her maintenance. The sum thus granted is neither excessive nor exorbitant. Basing on the financial status of husband, such amount was ordered to be paid to the wife towards maintenance. As husband failed to establish that wife can maintain herself and as wife failed to establish that the sum granted towards maintenance is on lower side and that she is entitled to a higher sum, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds in these revision provisions so as to interfere with the well reasoned order of the Family Court. Thus, the ultimate conclusion of this Court is that both the revision petitions deserved to be dismissed.

NC: 2026:KHC:28038 RPFC No. 174 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 145 of 2020

8 -

HC-KAR

Resultantly, both the revision petitions are dismissed.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

AP CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34