Dismissed¶ORDER (i)

Smt Syeda Meenaz v. Sri Ashfaq Ahmed

Writ Petition (Article 227, GM-FC) – enhancement of interim maintenance

Karnataka HC9 Jul 2025WP/5811/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Enhancement of interim maintenance; Rs.25,000/- per month; claim of Rs.75,000/- per month; Article 227 of the Constitution of India; Writ Petition (GM-FC); Family Court Bengaluru; Crl.Misc.No.231/2021; I.A.No.2; no material; guesswork; dismissed; Lalitha Kanneganti J.; WP No. 5811 of 2024; NC: 2025:KHC:25005; HC-KAR.

What did the court decide?

There is absolutely no material before this Court to grant a particular amount or to enhance the amount already granted by the trial Court by doing some guesswork ¶8

Smt Syeda Meenaz Vs Sri Ashfaq Ahmed — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25005 WP No. 5811 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 5811 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SYEDA MEENAZ W/O ASHFAQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, AND 3 OTHER MINOR CHILDREN REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SYEDA MEENAZ, R/AT NO 14, 2^ND CROSS, LBF ROAD, MAVALLI, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU -560 004

¶10

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO 2/34, FLAT NO.280 BASHEER KAVIL APARTMENT, TAVARKERE MAIN ROAD, MARUTHINAGARA BTM 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU -560 058

¶12

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G.KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

SRI.ASHFAQ AHMED S/O AHMED BASHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO 14, 2^ND CROSS, LBF ROAD, MAVALLI, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU -560 004

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI. ABDUL SAB C.B., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:25005 WP No. 5811 of 2024

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND MODIFY THE MAINTENANCE AWARD BY ENHANCING THE SAME AS CLAIMED IN I.A.NO.2 IN CRL. MISC. NO.231/2021 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU DATED: 18.10.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.2 in Crl.Misc.No.231/2021 dated 18.10.2023 by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the petitioner/wife is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶26

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶27

By way of order impugned, the trial Court had granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month as interim maintenance. The husband was also directed to pay the arrears of interim maintenance within 3 months from the date of order, failing which the wife is entitled to recover the same through due process of law.

¶28

The I.A. is filed seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.75,000/- per month to herself and her children. It is the

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25005 WP No. 5811 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

case of the wife that the husband is doing business and earning

¶32

an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- per month. Further, he is having rental income from the building to the extent of Rs.60,000/-. In spite of the same, the husband has neglected to maintain the wife and the children.

¶33

It is the case of the husband that he is earning an amount of Rs.15,000/- per month and it is his case that the wife is doing tailoring work and earning an amount of Rs.30,000/- per month. The Court while granting an amount of Rs.25,000/- as maintenance had observed that in the invitation

¶34

card of the marriage, it is shown that the husband is the proprietor of M.A. Enterprises, Mavalli, Bangalore and the husband was doing business of supplying all kinds of acrylic sheets and number plates and defiantly he is getting good income from the business and therefore, he cannot avoid the responsibility of maintaining the wife and the children by saying that the wife has got good financial background and that too is not supported by any documentary evidence. The Court had observed that it is well settled law that an able bodied person is bound to maintain his wife and children and accordingly

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:25005 WP No. 5811 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

granted maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Aggrieved thereby, the wife is before this Court.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the wife submits that the wife is not able to maintain herself and her two children with an amount of Rs.25,000/- per month that is granted by the trial Court. It is submitted that the husband is having business and he is getting rent from the building rented by him and still he fails to maintain the wife and the children by providing adequate maintenance.

¶40

When this matter came up on the last two occasions, there was no representation on behalf of the counsel for the respondent. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the entire material on record. The wife is seeking maintenance of an amount of Rs.75,000/- per month to herself and her son. According to the wife, the husband is doing business and earning lakhs of rupees and he is also getting rental income from the building. The basis for the trial Court to grant maintenance of an amount of Rs.25,000/- is that in the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:25005 WP No. 5811 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

invitation card for the marriage, it is shown that the husband is

¶46

the proprietor of M.A. Enterprises. Now, the wife is before this Court seeking enhancement of the maintenance. Absolutely there is no material before this Court to grant a particular amount or to enhance the amount already granted by the trial Court by doing some guesswork. This Court is of the view that there are no grounds to enhance the maintenance. Hence, this Court is passing the following order:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed .

¶49

ii. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶50

SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

¶51

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Smt Syeda Meenaz v. Sri Ashfaq Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Syeda Meenaz v. Sri Ashfaq Ahmed

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

Sri P S Karthick Vs Smt R Ishwarya

Mr. Valerian Dsouza Vs Mrs. Saritha Dsouza

Kum Varshini Vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd.

Pradeep G R Vs Ms Divya R a

Shwetabh Sahay Vs Amrita Sinha

Mr. Fairoz Ahamed, Vs Sri. B. Basavaraj