Remanded

Shri.Taufeeq Abdulgafar Dharwad v. Smt.Tabassum W/O Taufeeq Dharwad

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2024RPFC/100106/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition filed challenging maintenance quantum determined by Family Court using online profile data. Court held basis irregular and remanded for fresh determination based on filed affidavits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set-aside; matter remanded for fresh determination; interim maintenance fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month.

Shri.Taufeeq Abdulgafar Dharwad Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13055 RPFC No. 100106 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100106 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI TAUFEEQ S/O. ABDULGAFAR DHARWAD, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE, R/O: PLOT NO.53, CTS NO.10562, RAM NAGAR, BELAGAVI, TQ AND DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SMT.TABASSUM W/O. TAUFEEQ DHARWAD, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: C/O ISMAIL R. ATTAR, AMARESHWAR NAGAR, GANGIMADI RING ROAD, GADAG, TQ AND DIST: GADAG.

¶14

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

¶15

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI MRUTYUNJAYA TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14.08.2019, IN CRL.MISC.NO.35/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE 1^ST ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, GADAG, AT GADAG AND ETC., IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:13055 RPFC No. 100106 of 2019

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

Challenging order dated 14.08.2018 passed by First Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Gadag in Miscellaneous No.35/2018, this petition is filed.

¶22

Sri Santosh Malagoudar., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized on 17.11.2013 at Gadag. Thereafter, due to marital discard between them, they were residing separately. It was submitted, since a revision petition was filed challenging order on quantum, various allegations and counter allegations regarding reasons for marital discard are not reiterated before this Court. Insofar as quantum it was submitted, petitioner was working in Vodafone Mobile as Area Manager. Prior to that he was working in Asian Paints and Apple India. At that time, he was earning Rs.49,500/-. Though respondent did not provide any specific evidence regarding income of petitioner, based only on profile of petitioner on Noukari.Com, Family Court had presumed his income and determined monthly maintenance of Rs.25,000/-, which was exorbitant. It was submitted that, in affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed before this Court, petitioner had disclosed details of his sources of income. When

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13055 RPFC No. 100106 of 2019

¶24

compared to same, impugned order would be without basis and therefore, sought for quashing.

¶25

On other hand, Sri Mrutyunjaya Tata Bhangi, learned counsel for respondent sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, parties had not filed affidavit of Assets and Liabilities before Family Court. However, same was filed before this Court. In said affidavit, while providing personal details, petitioner had referred to his expired passport instead of current. It was submitted, current passport would disclose that petitioner had provided incorrect information and respondent believed petitioner was presently working in Middle-East and was suppressing income. It was submitted, even income tax returns from date of filing of petition till year 2022 (stated to be last year of filing of income tax returns), would disclose monthly income of Rs.1,50,000/thereby reinforcing determination by Family Court. Attention was also sought to be drawn to copy of ‘salary certificate’ produced along with a memo before Family Court by petitioner himself, wherein his income was shown as Rs.1,09,526/- during June-2019. Therefore, there was no merit in petition and sought dismissal.

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13055 RPFC No. 100106 of 2019

¶27

In reply learned counsel for petitioner submitted that, petitioner had clearly asserted in his affidavit that he was not working at present and therefore, even if respondent’s allegation was that petitioner had not produced current passport, same would not by itself vindicate their contention. It was submitted, as he was out of employment, he had not filed income tax returns after year-2022.

¶28

Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and record.

¶29

From above, it is seen that, before Family Court, parties had not filed affidavit of Assets and Liabilities and while passing order, Family Court had taken note of profile status of petitioner on Noukari.Com, wherein his annual income was shown as Rs.12,50,000/-. It is also seen, respondent had produced salary slip of petitioner while he was working at Asian Paints at Annexure-R4 and Vodafone Mobile at Annexure-R9 showing salary of Rs.50,000 to 60,000/- p.m. But, Family Court had referred to annual income mentioned in Ex.P9 to hold petitioner was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month and awarded 1/4^th of same as maintenance.

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13055 RPFC No. 100106 of 2019

¶31

Income mentioned on profile status in Noukari.Com

¶32

would not be a document of income. Normally, it is income tax returns, salary slips and bank passbook etc., that would indicate income. Thus, basis for determination by Family Court would be highly irregular and a material irregularity. But, parties have now filed affidavit of Assets and Liabilities. As per law in Rajnesh Vs Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, it would be appropriate to remit matter to Family Court for fresh determination by taking note of contents of affidavit of Assets and Liabilities and permitting parties to lead evidence/cross-examine each other on contents of affidavit.

¶33

8. In view of above, petition is allowed in part.

¶34

Impugned order dated 14.08.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.35/2018 by 1^st Additional Principal Family Court, Gadag, is hereby set-aside.

¶35

Since both parties are represented, they are directed to appear before Family Court at Gadag on 28.10.2024 without requirement of notice. Thereafter, Family Court is directed to permit parties to lead evidence within specific time frame, if

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:13055 RPFC No. 100106 of 2019

¶37

they so desire and pass fresh orders on quantum of maintenance.

¶38

Until then, petitioner shall pay interim maintenance at Rs.15,000/- per month on or before 10^th of each month. Family Court shall endeavor to dispose of petition as far as possible within an outer limit of six months from 28.10.2024.

¶39

All contentions of both parties are kept open on quantum.

¶40

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Shri.Taufeeq Abdulgafar Dharwad v. Smt.Tabassum W/O Taufeeq Dharwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri.Taufeeq Abdulgafar Dharwad v. Smt.Tabassum W/O Taufeeq Dharwad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nagamma Fakkirappa Ballary Vs Fakkirappa Ramappa Ballary

Vishnu Ganapati Bhat Vs Union of India

Shivananda S/O Mallikarjun G. Patil Vs the Divisional Manager

Shri Siddarameshwar Education Trust, Vs the State of Karnataka

Krishna S/O Timmanayak Dalawal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjula W/O Basavaraj Kattimani Vs the State of Karnataka