This writ petition challenged a maintenance order granted in favor of the petitioner's wife and son. The High Court dismissed the petition after hearing arguments regarding the petitioner's health and income, finding no necessity for further proceedings.
The writ petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
RPFC No.76/2017
BETWEEN:
NAZEER AHAMED S/O LATE SULTAN AHMED AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O SAKREBYLU GAJANUR POST SHIVAMOGGA TALUK – 577202 ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S.HARISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.SMT.ZUBEDHA BI W/O NAZEER AHAMED AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.81, SAKREBYLU SHIVAMOGGA TALUK -577 202 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.V.MAHESHWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
2
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2017 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.221/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for admission with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.
3
“The 1st petitioner is the wife and 2nd petitioner is the son of the respondent. The petitioners claims maintenance stating that respondent totally neglected to maintain them since 05 years. It is stated that they are residing in a rented house without any source of income. Further it is stated that they are not able to maintain themselves. It is stated that the respondent is working as a Forest Contractor since 35 years and earning Rs.15/- lakhs per annum. He has got RCC house and vacant space in Khatha No.26/25 and he is also having ancestral family site which measures 40x60 feet in khatha No.9/8 situated at Sakrebylu village, Shivamogga Taluk. He is having 2 acres of land in Sy.No.2 of Sakrebylu, which grown Arecanut garden. In all respondent earning more than Rs.30/lakhs per month. He is capable to pay maintenance of Rs.25,000/each per month to the petitioners No.1 and 2. Accordingly, the petitioners prayed for
4
monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- each from the respondent.”
with the oral and documentary evidence as under:
For petitioners’ side: PW-1 –Smt.Jubedabee
For respondent’s side: RW-1 – Nazeer Ahammed
List of documents marked For Petitioner’s side:
Ex.P-1 to 3- 3 photos Ex.P-4 & 5 -2 Khatha extracts Ex.P-6 – ME extract Ex.P-7- RTC extract Ex.P-8- Khatha extract
For Respondent’s side:
5
Ex.R-1- Discharge summary Ex.R-2-Angiogram report Ex.R-3 & 4 – Certificates issued by Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Gajanur, Shivamogga Taluk
Ex.R-5- Request letter from Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society, Gajanur, Shivamogga Taluk
Ex.R-6- Geneology Ex.R-7- Valuation certificate Ex.R-8- Copy of sale deed Ex.R-9- ME extract Ex.R-10- RTC extract Ex.R-11- copy of passbook Ex.R-12- copy of voter ID Ex.R-13- Letter issued by Tahasildar, Shivamogga
learned Judge passed order on 25.02.2017 as under:
ORDER
“The petition filed by the petitioners No.1 and 2 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed with cost.
The respondent shall pay maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each per month to the
6
petitioners No.1 and 2 from the date of petition.”
7
maintenance the averments are made to the prejudice of revision petitioner.
9. Learned counsel Sri.Harish Kumar also submits
that respondent has suppressed the fact of average health of revision respondent No.2. The petitioner is stated to be contractor and according to revision respondents they required monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/- and revision petitioner is earning Rs.15 lakhs per year. However the same is denied by the revision petitioner.
concerned Section 125 Cr.P.C contemplates as under:
8
(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate not exceeding five hundred rupees in the whole, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct: Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband
9
of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means. Explanation.For the purposes of this Chapter,-
(a) " minor" means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875 ); is deemed not to have attained his majority;
(b) " wife" includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.
(2) Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.
(3) If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month' s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall
10
be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife' s refusal to live with him.
(4) No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
(5) On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is
11
living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.
12
status, the requirements and background of the parties. It is necessary if the revision respondents are entitled or when there is a change of circumstance it is always open to a person against whom maintenance is ordered to have recourse to Section 127 Cr.P.C to establish a ground or circumstances which would further disable the entitlement for maintenance or reduction in maintenance.
13
members he has to go for second marriage. In the overall circumstances of the case considering marital relationship, status, health, assertions and contentions of the parties, I find no necessity for further proceedings and petition is liable to be dismissed at this stage itself.
Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
SBN
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision petitioner had sufficient grounds and changed circumstances warranting a reduction or quashing of the maintenance order.
Whether the delays and lack of supporting evidence for health claims justified dismissing the petition without further inquiry.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nazeer Ahamed S/o Late Sultan Ahmed
Smt. Zubedha Bi W/o Nazeer Ahamed
Nazeem Ahmed S/o Nazeer Ahamed
N.K. Sudhindrarao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
