Disposed

Mrs Arfa Sharieff v. Mr Rehan Sayeed

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024WP/2623/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court set aside an order dismissing a maintenance petition for default, requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 1,000 to the respondent as a condition for a fresh hearing in the lower court.

What did the court decide?

Order in Crl.Misc.No.769/2018 dated 23.12.2022 set aside on condition of paying Rs.1,000 to respondent; Writ Petition disposed of.

Mrs Arfa Sharieff Vs Mr Rehan Sayeed — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:26148 WP No. 2623 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 2623 OF 2023 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MRS ARFA SHARIEFF AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS W/O REHAN SAYEED

¶8

MASTER ARHAN SAYEED AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS S/O REHAN SAYEED

¶9

3 KUMARI AMYRA SAYEED AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS S/O REHAN SAYEED

¶10

R2 AND R3 ARE MINOR REP BY

¶11

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THEIR MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN MR.ARFA SHARIFEFF

¶13

ALL ARE FORMERLY R/AT NO. 11, 5^TH C CROSS MCHS COLONY, 16^TH AMIN BTM 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU -560 076

¶14

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.155 8^TH CROSS

¶15

S.K.GARDEN BILLWARDHALI NEAR TAJ HERITAGE BANERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU -560 083

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI.MAKBUL PASHA M.D., ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:26148 WP No. 2623 of 2023

¶20

AND:

¶21

MR.REHAN SAYEED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS S/O MR.SYED ARIFUYLLA R/AT NO 16, 2^ND FLOOR 20^TH MAIN, RAMASWAMY LAYOUT J.P.NAGAR, 5^TH PHASE BENGALURU -560 078

¶22

…RESPONDENT

¶23

(BY SRI. DINESH S., ADVOCATE AND SMT.MRIGNAYANI R.DEOKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 23/12/2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO.769/2018 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU BETWEEN SMT. ARFA SHARIEFF AND OTHERS-VSMR. REHAN SAYEED.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Aggrieved by the orders passed in Crl.Misc.No.769/2018 dated 23.12.2022 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru, whereby the Court below had dismissed the petition filed by the wife seeking maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC. The petitioner/wife is before this Court.

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26148 WP No. 2623 of 2023

¶29

It is stated that the Court below had dismissed the matter on 23.12.2022 observing that the respondent is present. Petitioner is called, absent and kept by for evidence. Case again called at 5.00 pm., petitioner and her counsel called, absent. In spite of respondent having filed the objections to I.A.No.2, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not opted to address his arguments on I.A.No.2 and thereafter, in spite of scheduling the matter for evidence on 24.06.2022 not opted to lead evidence. Hence, petition is dismissed for default. Now, the present Writ Petition is came to be filed stating that the learned counsel who was representing was no more, as such the matter cannot be represented and hence, on that the order may be set aside.

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent/husband submits that the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner died on 18.01.2019, thereafter they have engaged another learned counsel on 28.01.2019 and they have come up before this Court with all misrepresentation of facts, as such, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:26148 WP No. 2623 of 2023

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material placed on record. This Court has perused the order impugned. The Court below except stating that on the particular day, there is no representation and had not stated any valid reasons for dismissing the same. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that on 10 occasions earlier, the wife had not represented the matter. It is further submitted that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Rajnesh Vs. Neha¹ and another , the wife has not filed her statement of assets and liabilities, that is how the Court below had rightly dismissed the application. This is an application filed under Section 125 of CrPC., seeking maintenance. This Court has considered the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent and also perused the material on record. No doubt, there are lapses on the part of the wife in perusing the matter.

¶33

In the process of doing substantial justice, in the interest of the parties and to give an opportunity to the wife, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following,

¶34

1 AIR 2021 SUPREME COURT 569

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC:26148 WP No. 2623 of 2023

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The order in Crl.Misc.No.769/2018 dated 23.12.2022 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru is set aside on the condition that she shall pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent.

¶39

ii. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of . iii. Pending I.As., if any, shall stand closed.

¶40

iv. The Court below without granting any further adjournments shall proceed with the matter.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Mrs Arfa Sharieff v. Mr Rehan Sayeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Arfa Sharieff v. Mr Rehan Sayeed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri B Hemanth Kumar Mehta Vs Stmt Asha H Mehta

Sri. Shivanna S. @ Shivakumar Vs Smt. Manjula N. a.

Mr. Kumar v. Vs Mrs. Priyanka

Sri Mohammed Dilshad Vs Smt Naseeba Katoon

Sri Kumaraswamy T Vs Smt Pavitra K

L R Chandrashekar Vs Sakamma