Partly allowed

Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar v. Shri Jameelahmed S/O Maheboobsab Punekar

Where both parents earn – the mother substantially more than the father

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024RPFC/100038/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against Family Court maintenance order granting Rs.2,500 per month to each child and rejecting the mother's claim due to her higher salary. High Court upheld rejection for the wife but found child maintenance grossly insufficient, remitted quantum for fresh consideration and fixed interim maintenance.

What did the court decide?

Wife's revision dismissed; children's revision partly allowed; matter remitted to Family Court for fresh quantum determination with interim maintenance of Rs.4,000/month per child.

Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar Vs Shri Jameelahmed… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932 RPFC No. 100038 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100038 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ALINA D/O. JAMEELAHMED PUNEKAR, AGE:10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶10

MAIRA D/O. JAMEELAHMED PUNEKAR, AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.

¶11

SMT.RUBINA W/O. JAMEELAHMED PUNEKAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE.

¶12

ALL RESIDING AT WARD NO.4, DARGA JAIL ROAD, SHAKTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR, NOW RESIDING AT VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADV.)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

SHRI JAMEELAHMED S/O. MAHEBOOBSAB PUNEKAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BANK SERVICE, R/O: WARD NO.4, DARGA JAIL ROAD, HAKTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI N.L.BATAKURKI, ADV.)

¶20

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.12.2023, PASSED IN CRIL.MISC. NO.60/2021, BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BAGALKOTE, IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAINTENANCE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN PART DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO PAY MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.2,500/- TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THEIR MARRIAGE, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENT TO pay MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED BEFORE THE TRAIL COURT, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932 RPFC No. 100038 of 2024

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Challenging order dated 20.12.2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Bagalakote in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021, this petition is filed.

¶26

Sri Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that marriage of petitioner no.3 and respondent was solemnized at Bagalakote on 24.10.2010. From wedlock, petitioners no.1 and 2 were born. It was submitted, petitioner no.1 is suffering from heart ailment. It was submitted, due to subsequent marital discord, petitioner no.3 and respondent were residing separately. Therefore petitioners had filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for maintenance. On contest, said petition came to be allowed in part, insofar as petitioners no.1 and 2 while in case of petitioner no.3 it was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, present petition was filed.

¶27

It was submitted, no reasons were assigned by Family Court for fixing monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/-

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932 RPFC No. 100038 of 2024

¶29

each to petitioners no.1 and 2, while rejection of petition of petitioner no.3 was only by referring to her employment and income and taking note of second marriage entered into by respondent. It was submitted merely on ground that respondent entered into another marriage, would not dispense with requirement of maintaining petitioner no.3. Therefore order impugned called for interference.

¶30

On other hand, Sri N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel for respondent sought to oppose revision petition.

¶31

It was submitted, as per Ex.P.8, petitioner no.3 was working as Lecturer in Senior scale and earning gross salary of Rs.1,20,416/- per month, with net salary of Rs.89,733/-. Therefore, submitted that, rejection of petition for maintenance in respect of petitioner no.3 was fully justified. It was further submitted that as per Annexures-R.1 and R.2, respondent was working in Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank with gross salary of Rs.50,171/- and net salary of Rs.33,332/-. Since salary of petitioner no.3 was more than double that of respondent, Family Court had rightly rejected petition. It was submitted, claim was not

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932 RPFC No. 100038 of 2024

¶33

supported by documents about quantum of maintenance needed as observed by Family Court. In that light there were

¶34

no good grounds to interfere and sought for dismissal.

¶35

Heard learned counsel and perused petition

¶36

record.

¶37

From above, point that requires to be considered is as follows:

¶38

“Whether impugned order suffers from error of jurisdiction, perversity or material irregularity and calls for interference?

¶39

Insofar as petitioner no.3, claim for maintenance

¶40

is rejected. Rejection is based on income of petitioner no.3

¶41

as shown in Ex.P.8. Ex.P.8 discloses that, her gross salary was at Rs.1,20,416/- and net salary of Rs.89,733/-. This would indicate that, she is fully capable of maintaining herself.

¶42

Besides as per Exs.R.1 and R2, income of respondent is nearly half that of petitioner no.3. Therefore, even claim on basis of status of respondent would not be

¶43

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932 RPFC No. 100038 of 2024

¶44

justified. Therefore, order insofar as rejection of petition of petitioner no.3, does not suffer from any error calling for interference.

¶45

Insofar as petitioners no.1 and 2, in para no.12 of impugned order, Family Court has observed that petitioner no.3 has not given any breakup of amount required for maintenance of children. Except Ex.P.7-medical report, which would indicate that petitioner no.1 has some heart ailment, there is no material on quantum of maintenance needed. At same time, taking note of fact that petitioner no.3 is earning Rs.1,20,416/- and respondent is earning Rs.50,171/-, fixation of monthly maintenance to petitioners no.1 and 2 at Rs.2,500/- each would be grossly insufficient. Failure to take note of income of both parents and that this would be a case of joint parenting wherein both contribute equally for maintenance of children, would be a material irregularity calling for interference.

¶46

Since, petitioners have not placed relevant material regarding expenses towards education, etc., it would be appropriate to remit matter back to Family Court

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932 RPFC No. 100038 of 2024

¶48

for fresh consideration reserving liberty to petitioners no.1 and 2 to lead further evidence by fixing interim maintenance till fresh determination. Hence, point for consideration answered partly ‘in affirmative’ insofar as petitioner no.1 and 2 and ‘in negative’ insofar as petitioner no.3. Consequently, following.

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i. Revision petition insofar as petitioner no.3 stands dismissed.

¶51

ii. Revision petition insofar as petitioners no.1 and 2 is allowed in part.

¶52

iii. Matter is remitted back to Family Court for fresh consideration with liberty to parties to lead further evidence insofar as quantum of maintenance.

¶53

iv. Since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before Family Court on 21.10.2024, without awaiting fresh notice.

¶54

v. Registry to transmit Trial Court Records to Family Court, Bagalakote well before said date. Thereafter parties to cooperate for early conclusion of matter. Family Court is directed

¶55

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932 RPFC No. 100038 of 2024

¶57

to dispose of petition afresh as for as possible within an outer limit of four months.

¶58

vi. Till then, respondent is directed to pay interim maintenance at rate of Rs.4,000/- per month to each of petitioners no.1 and 2, which shall be interim maintenance and Family Court would be at liberty to determine it appropriately based on evidence placed on record.

¶59

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶60

EM CT-ASC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar v. Shri Jameelahmed S/O Maheboobsab Punekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar v. Shri Jameelahmed S/O Maheboobsab Punekar

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

Mohammed Zaheer S/O Abdulla Sab Jalegar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Mr Gopalkrishna S/O Narayan Mangalarti Vs Mr. Narsinha S/O Krishanappa Mangalari

Tirukappa S/O. Lakkappa Pujari Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Madhu W/O Manjunath Machapur Vs Shri Manjunath S/O Gurushidappa Machapur

Venkatesh S/O Babayya Vs the Secretary

Siddappa Kuri S/O Yallappa Vs Karnataka Residencial Educational Institutions Society