Dismissed

Roohulla v. Smt Fouziya

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2023RPFC/86/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The HighCourt disposed of a revision petition challenging a maintenance order dated 18.01.2021 under Section 125 CrPC. Upon amendment, the court allowed the petition due to the submissionthat the parties are living together, thereby upholding the lower court's order on the principle of settlement.

What did the court decide?

Revision petition dismissed and impugned judgment of the Family Court upholding the maintenance order.

Roohulla Vs Smt Fouziya — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:46377 RPFC No. 86 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVISION PETITIION FAMILY COURT NO. 86 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ROOHULLA S/O JAMSHEED AHMED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT 1217, 4^TH CROSS, 4^TH STAGE, KALYANAGIRI, MYSURU-570 019

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. FOUZIYA W/O ROOHULLA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS

¶12

MOHAMMED MUSAB S/O ROOHULLA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN 1^ST PETITIONER MOTHER

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT 1045, 2^ND STAGE, 4^TH CROSS, RIYZUL JANNA MASJID, KALYANAGIRI, MYSURU-570 019

¶15

ALSO AT DOOR NO.319, EWS 2^ND STAGE, III CROSS, KALYANAGIRI NAGAR, KYATHAMARANAHALLI, NAZARBAD, MYSURU-570 019

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶18

RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:46377 RPFC No. 86 of 2021

¶21

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MIS.NO.568/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged a judgment dated 18.01.2021 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl. Mis. No.568/2020, by which, a sum of Rs.7,000/- was ordered to be paid by the petitioner herein as monthly maintenance to the respondent No.1 herein for her lifetime and a sum of Rs.3,000/- as monthly maintenance to the respondent No.2 herein from the date of the petition till he attained 12 years and thereafter, a sum of Rs.5,000/- till he attained the age of majority.

¶25

The petitioner and the respondent No.1 are present in person and are identified by their respective counsel. Both of them would submit that they are living

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:46377 RPFC No. 86 of 2021

¶28

together and therefore, there is no need to pass any order regarding maintenance. They have affixed their signatures to the order sheet maintained by this Court in the petition.

¶29

In that view of the matter, this petition is disposed off upholding the impugned judgment dated 18.01.2021 passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, in Crl.Mis. No.568/2020. However, it is open for the parties to appear before the Trial Court and file any settlement, if arrived at.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

SMA

¶32

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

Roohulla v. Smt Fouziya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roohulla v. Smt Fouziya

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

Manjappa Vs State by Women'S Police

Smt. Seeramma, Vs Sri. Muni Sanjeevaiah

Sri. Prateepa T Vs R. Venkatesh

Mr Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Aroon Purie Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh @ Harish M D Vs State by Yelahanka Police