Husband challenged interim maintenance orders of Rs.4,000 and Rs.10,000 and a cost imposed in a DV Act proceeding, claiming his assets were ignored. Court found his affidavit of assets false and perfunctory, held maintenance reasonable given his salary, and dismissed the petition.
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,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 100434 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED RAFIQ S/O FAKIRSAB NADAF AGE 57 YEARS OCC: FDC O/O EXE-ENGINEER, M I & DWD DIN, SHAHPUR DAAK BUNGLOW, SHAHPUR BELAGAVI 590001
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A D NADAF & SRI. K.R. AKKI.,ADVOCATES)
AND:
YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR
YASMIN BANU W/O MOHAMMED RAFIQ NADAF AGE 34 YRS OCC HOUSEHOLD C/O MOULASAB IMAMSAB NADAF BAMMAPUR, KUMBAR ONI HUBBALI 580020
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.L. LADKHAN FOR SRI. D.L. LADKHAN.,ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM MAINTENANCE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.NO.1 DAED 14.09.2020 FOR RS. 4,000/- IN CRL.MISC NO.57/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. CJ AND JMFC, HUBBALLI
WHICH WAS PASSED WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE MANDATE OF APEX COURT, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
order came to be challenged by the petitioner in Crl.Appeal No.5095/2022 which came to be dismissed vide order dated 21.5.2023 by taking into account status of the party the amount awarded are proper and correct.
which he also has his own expenses of sum of Rs.10,000/which had been fixed as interim maintenance by the trial Court. On these grounds he submits that the trial Court has not considered the assets and liabilities of the petitioner. The pay slip produced by the petitioner issued by the Department of Minor Irrigation is proper and correct.
filed. A basic minimum which is required to sustained would be Rs.10,000/- which has been rightly ordered by the trial.
by the petitioner before this court.
Sd/JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interim maintenance of Rs.10,000/- fixed for the wife under the DV Act should be set aside on the husband's claim that his assets and liabilities were not properly considered.
Whether the petitioner's non-compliant affidavit of assets and liabilities warranted equitable relief from the interim maintenance order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajnesh vs. NehaApplied¶9
(2021)2 SCC 324 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Rafiq S/o Fakirsab Nadaf
Yashavant Narayankar
Yasmin Banu W/o Mohammed Rafiq Nadaf
Suraj Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
