Sri Syed Imran Vs Smt Bibi Fathima Zehra

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA RPFC NO. 338 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SYED IMRAN S/O SRI. LATE SYED HAFFIZ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 105 RAGURAM LAYOUT, RAMACHANDRAPUR, NEAR TEACHERS FACTORY BANGALORE - 560 013.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY MR. MOHAMED NASIRUDDIN., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

SMT BIBI FATHIMA ZEHRA W/O SYED IMRAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 53, C P V BLOCK GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY MR. SIRAJIN BASHA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.01.2023, PASSED IN CRL.MISC.NO. 313/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶16

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶20

CAV ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.313 of 2022, requesting to the set aside the ex-parte maintenance order.

¶22

Respondent-wife filed the above mentioned Criminal Miscellaneous claiming maintenance of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner-husband. The Family Court considering the arguments of the respondent-wife, granted her monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner-husband and also directed the husband to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the wife.

¶23

Aggrieved by the said order, this petition is filed by the petitioner-husband stating that their marriage was performed in the year 2016. Prior to the marriage and at the time of the marriage, both the parties were working in the

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

same company and respondent-wife was superior to him. He made allegations against her and stated that she is dominant in nature. It is further stated that respondent-wife filed PCR No.6271 of 2022 against him and his family members, and she also filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.313 of 2022 under Section 125 of CrPC. Summons were issued by the trial Court and notice was issued through RPAD, mentioning the date of hearing as 21.07.2022.

¶27

It is stated that the said summons were never served on him. However, the process server submitted to the Court by way of endorsement that he visited petitionerhusband's house on two occasions i.e. on 05.05.2022 and 18.05.2022 and as he did not find the petitioner, he served on Smt. Sheik Fathimun, the mother of the petitioner, but it is manipulation of facts. It is further stated that the entire endorsement scribed by the serving authority on the summon is written on the same day without any break. There is no observation of him having visited the petitioner's house on the earlier dates and the signature of the mother is on the top of the page, where there is no matter and therefore, it is a forged

¶28

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

signature. It is further stated by the petitioner-husband that his mother is a pardanashin woman and she is refrained from contacting the strangers. As such, serving of summons on the petitioner is false.

¶31

It is stated that the petitioner-husband also extracted the order sheet of the Family Court on 01.12.2022, wherein it was observed that petitioner-husband was absent, notice was served upon his mother on 21.07.2022, and as he did not appear, he was placed ex-parte on that day. But the summons in Criminal Miscellaneous No.334 of 2023 filed by the respondent-wife under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C was served on the petitioner-husband. Then only he came to know about the developments in Criminal Miscellaneous No.313 of 2022. Thereafter, he engaged the services of Sri P.C. Narasimhaiah, advocate, and filed objections in Criminal Miscellaneous No.334 of 2023 and also in other connected matters. The respondentwife also filed RPFC No.142 of 2023 before this Court and it is pending for consideration. It is further stated that he requested the counsel to represent him in other cases, but he failed to file an application for restoration in Criminal Miscellaneous No.313

¶32

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

of 2022. NBW was also against him in Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.334 of 2023, 389 of 2024 and 568 of 2025, all arising out of Criminal Miscellaneous No.313 of 2022. Thus, the petitionerhusband requested this Court to remand the matter to the Family Court and set aside the order dated 25.01.2023 on the ground that summons were never served upon him and he had no knowledge of the proceedings and the endorsement on the service of the summons is forged and fraud vitiates all judicial proceedings. It is also stated that the quantum of maintenance is excessive and disproportionate and it is violation of Audi Alteram Partem .

¶35

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both

¶36

sides.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband relied has upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Barik Seikh Vs. The State of W.B. and Others reported in

¶38

2004 Cr.L.J. 2152, in which it was held as follows:

¶39

“Muslim divorced woman cannot invoke provisions of S.125, Cr.P.C. against her former husband without exercising option under S.5 of 1986 Act.”

¶40

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The learned counsel also relied upon the Full Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Usman Khan Bahamani Vs. Fathimunnisa Begum and Others reported in AIR 1990 Andhra Pradesh 225 , wherein it was held that, liability of husband is limited for and during the period of iddat.

¶43

The learned counsel has further contended that petitioner-husband proclaimed triple talak on 23.04.2020, 11.10.2020 and also on 21.01.2022 and on 13.02.2022 repeatedly and as such, respondent-wife underwent depression.

¶44

Learned counsel for the respondent-wife contended that there is no valid talaq. No notice was given to her immediately after the talaq and she has not received the same. As such, it cannot be said that there is a valid talaq.

¶45

The family Court record shows three notices, The first notice dated 29.11.2022 and the second notice dated 29.12.2022 and the third notice dated 29.01.2023. He has filed

¶46

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the copy of the said notices, but not filed an acknowledgment to show that they were served upon the respondent-wife. So, it is for the Family Court to first decide as to whether there was valid triple talaq or not, and whether it was validly intimated to respondent-wife through notices as per the law.

¶49

Another point is that there should be compliance of Section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, which reads as follows:

¶50

“5. Option to be governed by the provisions of sections 125 to 128 of Act 2 of 1974

¶51

If, on the date of the first hearing of the application under sub-section (2) of section 3, a divorced woman and her former husband declare, by affidavit or any other declaration in writing in such form as may be prescribed, either jointly or separately, that they would prefer to be governed by the provisions of sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and file such affidavit or declaration in the Court hearing the application, the Magistrate shall dispose of such application accordingly.

¶52

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, “date of the first hearing of the application” means the date fixed in the summons for the attendance of the respondent to the application.”

¶53

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

The aforesaid aspect is also to be asserted by the Family Court. Moreover, the petitioner-husband has contended that there was no service of summons at any point of time either on him or on his mother and it was manipulated endorsement made by the process server and the said aspect is also to be enquired into by the Family Court. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the order of the Family Court and to remand the matter with a specific direction to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein and also to the other side, and to dispose of the matter afresh by duly considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

¶56

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶57

(i) The impugned order dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Court of II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.313 of 2022, is set aside.

¶58

9 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:33173 RPFC No. 338 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

(ii) The Family Court is directed to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein and also to the other side, and to dispose of the matter afresh by duly considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

¶62

(iii) With the above observation, this petition is disposed of.

¶63

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶64

CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Sri Syed Imran v. Smt Bibi Fathima Zehra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Imran v. Smt Bibi Fathima Zehra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Icici Lombard Vs Shivakumar @

Smt Meghana Vs Shri Jayashankar Chaluvaraj

The Divisional Controller Vs Sri. Abhishek H S

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Poornanda Prabhu

Ravikumar Vs Jayalakshmi

Legal Manager Vs Ramanjappa G