Shri. Manjunatha. H Vs Smt. Shruthi. K — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

Shri. Manjunatha. H Vs Smt. Shruthi. K — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; the Family Court maintenance order dated 08.11.2024 stands upheld as awarded

Issue for consideration

Whether the maintenance amounts awarded by the Family Court (Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs.12,500/- per month to each of respondent Nos.2 and 3) are payable by the petitioner despite his claimed loss of employment, such that the impugned order is liable to be set aside +1 more

Court's answer

The decision taken by the Family Court that the respondents are entitled for maintenance from the petitioner is justifiable

Ratio / Principle

No material is on record to show that the petitioner left his job under compulsion or due to alleged threat from respondent No.1

Key takeaways

The sum awarded towards maintenance is not excessive, in view of respondent No.2 having to pursue her studies, respondent No.3 suffering from autism, and respondent No.1 being obliged to dedicate her time and strength to the welfare of respondent Nos.2 and 3ratio¶61
The revision petition lacks meritsratio¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral Order dated 05.02.2026 of the High Court of Karnataka (Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha) in RPFC No. 31 of 2025, filed under Sec.19(4) of the Family Courts Act against the order dated 8.11.2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc.No.39/2022, which partly allowed a Sec.125 Cr.P.C. maintenance petition, directing the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.25,000/- per month to respondent No.1 (wife) and Rs.12,500/- per month each to respondent Nos.2 and 3 (minor daughter and son suffering from autism), having regard to his earnings of Rs.1,77,234/- per month as Scientist at Dabur India Company Limited. Petitioner argued he had resigned and had no source of earnings. The Court found no material showing he left the job under compulsion or due to alleged threat from respondent No.1, held the entitlement and quantum of maintenance justifiable given respondent No.2's studies and respondent No.3's special needs, concluded the revision petition lacks merits, and dismissed it.

NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 31 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SHRI. MANJUNATHA. H SON OF LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, BENGAGALU, NILUVADI POST, PIRIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.425A PATELS CALISTO, THALAKAVERI MAIN ROAD, AMRUTHALLI, BENGALURU-560 092.

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. HEMANTH, ADVOCATE FOR

SMT.GEETHA DEVI M P.,ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONER

AND:

SMT. SHRUTHI. K WIFE OF SMT. MANJUNATHA H., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

BABY SANVI.M, DAUGHTER OF SMT. MANJUNATHA.H, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

HC-KAR

MASTER PRASIDH M

SON OF SMT. MANJUNATHA.H, AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS,

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SUBHODI BUILDING, 4TH CROSS, SHANKARAPURA EXTENSION, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

PRESENTLY ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.425A PATELS CALISTO, THALAKAVERI MAIN ROAD, AMRUTHALLI, BENGALURU-560092.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NIRMALA K., ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3;

R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1)

THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2024 PASSED IN Crl. Misc NO.39/2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.Hemanth who represents Ms.Geetha Devi.M.P learned counsel on record for the petitioner. Also heard Ms.Nirmala.K learned counsel for the respondents.

Being aggrieved by the order rendered by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.Misc.No.39/2022 dated 08.11.2024, this revision petition is filed. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:

(i) Petitioner herein is the husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are minors.

(iii) Respondent No.3 is a mentally challenged child suffering from autism.

(iv) Marriage between petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized in the year 2007 and they lived together till 2022.

(v) During the pendency of the proceedings in M.C.No.204/2022, respondent No.1 filed a memo on 04.11.2023 expressing her

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

HC-KAR

willingness to reside along with petitioner herein.

(vi) Since 10.11.2023 petitioner and respondent No.1 are residing under the same roof. However, placing a grill to the room where respondent No.1 resides, so as to prevent petitioner entering the said room.

Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has got lot of love and affection towards his wife and children. Since the date of marriage, he attended all the necessities of his wife and thereafter his wife and children. Even now he is looking after them well, providing all the necessities. Due to the adamant attitude of respondent No.1 disputes arose. Learned counsel states that petitioner was working as Scientist, but subsequently he lost his job and thus, as of now, he has no source of earnings. Petitioner though is willing to attend all the basic necessities of respondents, he cannot pay huge amount as ordered by the Family

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

HC-KAR

Court towards maintenance and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

Per contra, the submission that is made by learned counsel for the respondents is that petitioner doesn't evince any interest in the welfare of respondents. In case he had got such inclination to take care of respondents, that too respondent No.3 who is mentally challenged, he would not have resigned his job. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.1 though intended to lead her life with petitioner despite all the troubles she faced, yet due to the attitude of petitioner she is unable to lead life with him. Learned counsel also states that respondent No.1 is under obligation to look after the needs of respondent No.3 who suffers from autism and she has to be with him all 24 hours a day. Learned counsel also states that for the education of respondent No.2, for the physiotherapy and other needs of respondent No.3, respondent No.1 has to incur huge amount and therefore, the amount awarded towards maintenance is justifiable.

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

HC-KAR

In reply to the submission that is made by

learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.1 is responsible for petitioner leaving his job. Learned counsel states that respondent No.1 addressed a mail to the employer of petitioner and the employer of petitioner called petitioner and informed him that he cannot continue in his employment with cases pending and the disputes with his wife. Learned counsel submits that in case the employer of petitioner terminates the services of petitioner, he will not secure any other employment and therefore, to escape from such a decision being taken by his employer and from getting his track record spoiled, he voluntarily submitted his resignation.

There is no denial of the fact that respondent No.1 has got no source of earnings. Also there is no denial of the fact that respondent No.1 has to attend all the necessities of respondent No.2 who is their minor daughter

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

HC-KAR

and also has to attain all the requirements of respondent No.3 including basic requirements as he is a mentally challenged boy. The Court, through the impugned order, directed petitioner to pay respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.25,000/per month towards maintenance and Rs.12,500/- per month to each of respondent Nos.2 and 3 towards maintenance. Taking into consideration the fact that petitioner was working as Scientist at Dabur India Company Limited and was earning a sum of Rs.1,77,234/-

per month such an order was passed. No material is on record to show that petitioner left his job under compulsion or due to alleged threat from respondent No.1. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the respondents, petitioner should have continued his job and would have supported the respondents in case he has got such love and affection towards them more particularly his children respondent Nos.2 and 3 in abundance. Having gone through the contents of the impugned order meticulously, this Court is of the view that the decision

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:6873 RPFC No. 31 of 2025

HC-KAR

taken by the Family Court that respondents are entitled for maintenance from petitioner is justifiable. Also the sum awarded towards maintenance is not excessive in the light of the fact that respondent No.2 has to pursue her studies, respondent No.3 suffers from autism and respondent No.1 is under obligation to dedicate all her time and strength to the welfare of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the revision petition lacks merits.

Resultantly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26