Partly allowed

Sabiya W/O Umar Farooq Aga v. Umar Farooq @ (Zuheb) S/O Mushtaq Ahmed Aga

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2021CRL.RP/100202/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal revision petition to enhance the rent for alternative accommodation payable by the respondent husband from Rs.3,000 to Rs.5,000 per month, noting the insufficient appellate order and the respondent's undisclosed business income.

What did the court decide?

Rent for alternative accommodation increased from Rs.3,000 to Rs.5,000 per month from the date of this order.

Sabiya W/O Umar Farooq Aga Vs Umar Farooq @ (Zuheb) S/O… — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100202/2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SABIYA W/O UMAR FAROOQ AGA AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O 5TH CROSS, VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TALUKA AND DISTRICT-BELAGAVI-590016

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . UMAR FAROOQ @ (ZUHEB) S/O MUSHTAQ AHMED AGA AGE-31 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O CTS NO.3693/A, DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590002. TALUK AND DISTRICT-BELAGAVI.

¶12

2 . MUSHTAQ S/O. AHMEDSAB AGA, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O CTS NO.3693/A, DARBAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590002. TALUK AND DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.

¶13

3 . SAHERA W/O. MUSHTAQ AGA AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O CTS NO.3693/A, DARBAR GALLI,

¶14

¶15

BELAGAVI-590002. TALUK AND DISTRICT. BELAGAVI

¶16

4 . ALMAS W/O. ABBUBAKAR GOLANDAZ AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. MURGAMATH, MAHANT NAGAR, 3RD CROSS, DHARWAD-580001, TALUKA AND DISTRICT. DHARWAD

¶17

5 . SAJEEDA @ GOHAR W/O. SAMEER ATTAR AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR MOMIN GALLI, MASJID, BHENDI BAZAR, BELAGAVI-590001. TALUK AND DISTRICT. BELAGAVI

¶18

.. RESPONDENTS

¶19

(RESPONDENTS SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2020 PASSED IN CRL.A. NO.281/2019 BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI. THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED JMFC II COURT BELAGAVI N CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.94/2018 MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This criminal revision petition is filed by the petitioner wife

¶24

as against the order passed by the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi in Criminal Appeal No.281/2019 dated

¶25

¶26

06.08.2020 wherein the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.1-husband under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from domestic Violence Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act,’ for brevity) and directing the appellant therein(husband) to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month towards rentals of the alternative accommodation for respondent No.1 and her daughter from the date of filing of IA No.1 i.e. on 07.05.2018 till disposal of the main petition pending before the trial Court.

¶27

The respondents are served and unrepresented.

¶28

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the

¶29

petitioner.

¶30

The case of the petitioner-wife before the trial Court is that, she has filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed I.A.I under Section 19 of the DV Act seeking direction to respondent No.1 to secure same level of alternate accommodation by paying rent and the trial Court allowed the I.A.I and permitted the petitioner stay in the shared household of the respondents until further orders and

¶31

¶32

directed the police to assist the petitioner in implementation of the said order vide order 19.08.2018. Assailing the order passed by the trial Court, respondent No.1-husband filed an appeal which came to be allowed wherein the first appellate Court has modified the order passed by the trial Court and directed the respondent No.1 to pay a sum Rs.3,000/- towards rentals of the alternative accommodation from the date of filing of I.A.I i.e. on 07.05.2018 till disposal of the main petition. Being aggrieved by order passed by the first appellate Court, the petitioner-wife is before this Court.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court has rightly allowed the application but the first appellate Court has modified the order directing the appellant therein to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month which is highly insufficient to lead the life in a city like Belgaum. The respondent is having a house in Darbar Galli, Belgaum and he is running a pan shop which is revealed in the order passed by the Family Court, Belagavi, under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the respondent NO.1 is the owner of the Firm Steel Bird Industries at Belagavi and he has not shown the real income to the Court. The petitioner having a child and

¶34

¶35

presently they are staying in the house of her parents. Hence, the petitioner sought to confirm the order passed by the learned JMFC II Court, Belagavi, in Cr.Misc.No.94/2018 and alternatively contended to enhance the amount which is modified by the first appellate Court.

¶36

Perused the order passed by the trial court as well as the first appellate court. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and they having one child. The petitioner also filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking monthly alimony before the Family Court, Belagavi, which came to be allowed on 22.03.2018 in Crl.Misc. No.155/2017 granting Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner and Rs.1,000/to her daughter. The same is also not in dispute. And it was not challenged by the respondent-husband. The petitioner also filed an application before the JMFC Court, Belagavi under Section 12 of the DV Act seeking police protection to enter the portion of shared household during the pendency of the petitioner, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.I under Section 19 of the DV Act praying to induct her in the shared household bearing CTSNo.3693 situated at

¶37

¶38

Darbar Galli, Belagavi. The trial Court passed the impugned order by rejecting the submission made by the counsel for the respondent for paying Rs.2,000/- but directed to respondent to allow the petitioner to staying the shared household of the respondents until further orders and directed the respondent-husband to comply the order.

¶39

Admittedly, the first appellate Court modified the order and directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards rentals of the alternative accommodation. But the appellate Court while modified the order without any material documents to show that the petitioner is enough with Rs.3,000/- to stay in a house in the city like Belagavi and that the petitioner-wife requires at least Rs.5,000/- towards maintenance towards water charges and electricity charges are also to be incurred. The counsel for the petitioner also contended that the respondent is running a business Firm-Steel Bird Industries, at Belagavi in the center of the city of Belagavi. The order of the Family Court at inc page No. 9 reveals that as per Ex.P-1, the respondent is running a firm-Steel Bird Industries at Belagavi and he also admitted that the same is

¶40

¶41

situated in the center of the city and the appellant has denied that he is having income of Rs.75,000/- from all sources. He admitted that he is running a pan shop. Hence, it can be said that the respondent husband is having some income from pan shop. Therefore, the respondent will be burdened if Rs.5,000/- per month is awarded towards rent or alternative accommodation as he has to pay Rs.5,000/- per month towards maintenance also. However, looking to the fact and circumstances of the case, if the order of the first appellate court is modified as Rs.3,000/- per month from 07.05.2018 till passing of this order by this Court and from the date of order of this Court, respondent No.1 shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month from the date of order of this Court till disposal of the petition before the trial Court, it would meet the ends of justice.

¶42

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶43

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. The order of the first appellate Court in granting rent for the accommodation at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month from 07.05.2018 is upheld till passing of this order by this Court and from the date of order of this Court, the respondent No.1 shall pay Rs.5,000/- per month as

¶44

¶45

rent towards alternate accommodation from the date of order of this Court till disposal of the petition before the trial Court. The petitioner is at liberty to recover the arrears of rent towards alternate accommodation.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

kmv

Sabiya W/O Umar Farooq Aga v. Umar Farooq @ (Zuheb) S/O Mushtaq Ahmed Aga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabiya W/O Umar Farooq Aga v. Umar Farooq @ (Zuheb) S/O Mushtaq Ahmed Aga

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish S/O Gurunath Alias Gurappa Chalawadi Vs the State of Karnataka

Harapal Singh S/O Prem Singh Vs the State of Karnataka

D. Prabhakaran S/O. Dayalan Vs State of Karnataka

Jahangeer S/O Imamsab Mulla Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramadas Vithoba Anvekar Vs Mohan Vasanth Raikar S/O Vasant M.Raikar

N. Gayathri D/O.B.K.Narashime Goweda Vs the State of Karnataka