Dismissed¶42

Abdul Rehman Sab a S/O Honnur Sab v. Smt. Nishad Anjum W/O Abdul Rehaman Sab

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2025RPFC/100025/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench; RPFC No. 100025 of 2024; Justice E.S. Indiresh; decision dated 22.01.2025; maintenance quantum revision under Section 19(4) Family Courts Act against Family Court, Ballari order dated 21.12.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.104/2020; monthly maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- each (Rs. 18,000/- total) to wife Smt. Nishad Anjum and minor children Mohammed Azeem and Arshiya Naaz upheld; husband Abdul Rehman Sab, Special Reserve Head Constable, salary Rs. 44,382/- per month; revision petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The grant of maintenance of Rs. 6,000/- each to the petitioners by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference in this revision petition. ¶42

Abdul Rehman Sab a S/O Honnur Sab Vs Smt. Nishad Anjum W/O Abdul Rehaman Sab — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1165 RPFC No. 100025 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶7

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100025 OF 2024 (-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ABDUL REHMAN SAB A S/O. HONNUR SAB, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AHC IN IRB, R/O. BASAVESHWAR BADAVANE, NEAR SAPTAGIRI SCHOOL, WARD NO.10, TQ. HOSAPETE, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MANJANNA E

¶14

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Date: 2025.01.24 13:01:43 +0530

¶15

SMT. NISHAD ANJUM W/O ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.A.R POLICE LANE, BLOCK-L, D. NO.L1, S.N..PET BALLARI-583101, TQ. DIST. BALLARI.

¶16

MOHAMMED AZEEM S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN SAB, AGE. 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. D.A.R POLICE LANE, BLOCK-L, D. NO.L1, S.N..PET BALLARI-583101. TQ. DIST. BALLARI.

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1165 RPFC No. 100025 of 2024

¶18

ARSHIYA NAAZ S/O. ABDUL REHAMAN SAB AGE. 9 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. D.A.R POLICE LANE, BLOCK-L, D. NO.L1, S.N..PET, BALLARI-583101 TQ. DIST. BALLARI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVISION PETITION, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2022 IN CRL.MISC.PETITION NO.104/2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI AND DISMISS THE CRL.MISC.NO.104/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

This petition is filed by the respondent in

¶28

Crl.Misc.No.104/2020 challenging the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ballari (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance to the respondents herein.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1165 RPFC No. 100025 of 2024

¶30

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶31

referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioners before the Family Court that the marriage between the petitioner No.1 with the respondent was solemnized on 16.11.2008 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 and 3 were born. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent was not taking care of the needs of the petitioners and was an alcoholic and therefore, having not tolerated the inhuman acts on the part of the respondent, the petitioners have left the matrimonial home. It is also stated in the petition that the petitioners herein have lodged a complaint before the Women Police Station at Ballari and same was registered in Crime No.369/2021. Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.104/2020.

¶33

4.1. After service of notice, the respondent entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections stating that the petitioners have left the matrimonial home without any cause and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶34

4.2. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 21.12.2022 allowed the petition in

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1165 RPFC No. 100025 of 2024

¶37

part and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹18,000/- (₹6,000/- each in favour of petitioner No.1 to 3 therein). Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has presented this petition.

¶38

I have heard Sri. Dayanand M Bandi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B. S. Sangati, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶39

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the quantification of maintenance by the Family Court is on higher side and requires interference of this Court on the ground that the petitioner herein is drawing a salary of ₹30,300/- per month and therefore, sought for interference of this Court.

¶40

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent places on record the recent salary slip of the respondent-husband, which discloses that the recent salary of the respondent-husband is ₹44,382/- per month. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein (respondent-husband) is working as a Special Reserve Head-constable-200. In that view of the matter, taking into account the factual aspects on record

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1165 RPFC No. 100025 of 2024

¶42

that the relationship between the parties is not in disputed and two children were also born in the wedlock of the petitioner No.1 with the respondent-husband, I am of the view that the grant of maintenance of ₹6,000/- each to the petitioners by the Family Court is just and proper and does not call for interference in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶43

Sd/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶44

YAN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Abdul Rehman Sab a S/O Honnur Sab v. Smt. Nishad Anjum W/O Abdul Rehaman Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman Sab a S/O Honnur Sab v. Smt. Nishad Anjum W/O Abdul Rehaman Sab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgappa S/O Mariyappa Kattimani Vs Smt Shridevi W/O Vishwanath Malawad

G. Gangadhara S/O. Late Gourappa Vs Smt. M. Manjuladevi W/O. G. Gangadhara

Shri Chidanand S/O Apparai Masarguppi Vs Smt Soniya W/O Chidanand Masarguppi

Shri Hanamant S/O Irappa Naik Vs Shri Suresh S/O Muttappa Berad Alias Mahishwadagi

Sayeda Bibi Sarah Mannan W/O Syed Humaid Pasha Vs Sayed Humaid Pasha S/O Sayed Javed Pasha

Tulashigerappa S/O RAMRaDDI SHIVAraddi Vs Smt Mallavva W/O Ramaraddi Shivaraddi