Partly allowed

Smt Rubina Sulthana v. Dr Syed Saadat

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2024RPFC/98/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act against a Section 125 CrPC maintenance order. The Court held that while it cannot re-appreciate evidence or enhance the monthly amount without clear proof of higher income and responsibility, it directed the Family Court to award maintenance from the date of the original petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to the extent that respondent is liable to pay maintenance from the date of the maintenance petition (Crl. Misc. No.19/2021) instead of the order date.

Smt Rubina Sulthana Vs Dr Syed Saadat — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27528 RPFC No. 98 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶7

RPFC NO. 98 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT RUBINA SULTHANA, W/O DR SYED SADAT, D/O SRI SIKANDAR PASHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, FLOOR MILL ROAD, VEERASAGARA, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI MOHAN KUMAR M FOR SRI MOHAN S, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

DR SYED SAADAT, S/O SRI SYED SADIQ SAB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, LAND LORD MARUTHI NAARA, HULIYAR VILLAGE AND HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SRI R RAMACHANDRAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.19/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:27528 RPFC No. 98 of 2023

¶20

ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Challenging order dated 31.03.2023 passed by Prl. Judge, Family Court, Tumkuru in Crl. Misc no.19/2021, this petition is filed.

¶24

Sri Mohan Kumar M appearing for Sri Mohan S, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, marriage of petitioner and respondent was solemnized as per Mohammedan customs on 07.12.2019. It was submitted, after marriage, she resided with respondent in matrimonial home for about six months of marriage. Thereafter, respondent began abusing her with demand for dowry. It was submitted, though petitioner brought an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- ill treatment did not stop. On 03.08.2020 in the middle of night, she was physically assaulted, for which, she was admitted to Manjunatha Nursing Home, Tumkuru. After she was discharge from hospital, her parents took her with them. Thereafter, she was residing with her parents.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:27528 RPFC No. 98 of 2023

¶26

It was submitted, respondent was running a clinic by name 'Khalandria Shifa Clinic' at Dasoodi Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk and earning income from it. Despite

¶27

having sufficient source of income, when petitioner did not have any source of income. Therefore, he failed and neglected

¶28

to maintain her. Consequently, she lodged Crl. Misc. no.19/2021 before Family Court, Tumkuru under Section 125 of Cr.p.c. to pay her for maintenance of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. It was submitted in support of petition, petitioner had examined herself as PW1 and two other witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and also produced a marriage invitation as Ex.P1. In deposition, witnesses have clearly stated that respondent was running a clinic and earning more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month and also holding landed properties.

¶29

Thus, it was submitted that evidence would justify a claim for maintenance. However, without proper consideration, learned Family Judge took note and proceeded to direct respondent to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month. In view of above facts, determination of monthly

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27528 RPFC No. 98 of 2023

¶31

maintenance was erroneous, contrary to material on record. Therefore, called for interference.

¶32

On other hand, Sri R Ramachandraiah, learned counsel for respondent - husband at outset submitted, though marriage between petitioner and respondent was not disputed, petitioner did not lead a happy marital life with respondent and within a short span of time, by making false allegations of demand for dowry etc., she filed false cases against family members of respondent and voluntarily left respondent's company

¶33

It was also contended, as averred by petitioner in paragraph 16 of this petition, marriage between petitioner and respondent was dissolved by a decree of divorce granted in O.S no.1/2022, wherein petitioner had not claimed any maintenance or permanent alimony, which would not justify award of maintenance in present proceedings. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of petition.

¶34

Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused impugned order.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:27528 RPFC No. 98 of 2023

¶36

From above, it is seen that in present petition,

¶37

petitioner is challenging order of Family Court determining monthly maintenance on ground that same suffers from material irregularity / illegality in awarding meager amount as maintenance.

¶38

From above, points that would arise for

¶39

consideration are:

¶40

(1) Whether impugned order calls for interference ?

¶41

(2) Whether Family Court was justified in awarding maintenance from date of order instead of date of petition.

¶42

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, in a revision petition against an order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C, Revision Court would only examine whether order impugned suffers from material irregularity / illegality or error of jurisdiction and cannot re-appreciate evidence as if in appeal.

¶43

Perusal of order passed by learned Family Judge would indicate that, petitioner claimed that respondent was running a nursing home, holding landed properties and earning more than Rs.2,00,000/- per month. However, there are no

¶44

¶45

NC: 2024:KHC:27528 RPFC No. 98 of 2023

¶46

documents or material to substantiate same. On other hand, respondent - husband has also alleged that petitioner was a qualified as an Unani practitioner, running a clinic and earning income, which was sufficient for her maintenance.

¶47

However, as noted by Family Court, no materials to substantiate this has been produced. Taking note of suggestions made during cross examination and denial, Family Court proceeded to determine monthly maintenance at Rs.15,000/- based on status of parties.

¶48

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajnesh v. Neha , reported in 2021(2) SCC 32, stated that determination of maintenance would involve some extent of guess work. In absence of definite proof or material indicating exact income of parties, Family Court has awarded Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance. Admittedly, respondent not assailed said order and therefore, contentions urged to question award of maintenance would be untenable.

¶49

On other hand, in absence of materials to substantiate extent of income of respondents, an award of Rs.15,000/- cannot be set without any basis or is insufficient. In

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:27528 RPFC No. 98 of 2023

¶51

view of above, point no.1 for consideration is answered in negative.

¶52

Point no.2 - Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v.

¶53

Neha (supra) , stated that for purpose of uniformity, Family Court are required to award maintenance from date of petition unless, there are any specific materials or circumstances so existing as to deviate from same for awarding maintenance from date of order. Perusal of order passed by Family Court does not indicate any reasons for awarding maintenance from date of order. Therefore, order impugned would require indulgence in said aspect. Point no.2 is answered in affirmative.

¶54

Consequently, claim for enhancement is rejected, but it is held respondent would be liable to pay maintenance from date of petition. To said extent only, petition is allowed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Smt Rubina Sulthana v. Dr Syed Saadat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rubina Sulthana v. Dr Syed Saadat

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

Mahadeva Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Madegowda Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Basappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

M/S Parekh Industries Limited Vs M/S Bangalore Refinery Pvt. Ltd.

Smt P Gayathri Vs Smt Mayamma

Sri S Muralikrishna Vs Smt Lakshmi