Dismissed¶43

Sri. Mudassir Jabir, v. Smt. Ghousiya Tanzeem

Karnataka HC11 Feb 2026WP/6297/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; maintenance under S.125(1) Criminal Procedure Code; interim order (IA No.2) quashing sought by writ of certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; Family Court Bengaluru, Crl.Mis. No.335/2022; husband v. wife and minor son; alleged arrears Rs.4,68,000/-; repeated petitioner absence; GM-FC; NC: 2026:KHC:8331; Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha; 11.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner did not evince any interest in pursuing the writ petition: despite a number of opportunities granted to make submissions on the merits, he did not do so; the alleged proposal of settlement was vehemently denied by respondents' counsel; and the counsel representing the petitioner failed to argue on the merits of the matter. ¶43

Sri. Mudassir Jabir, Vs Smt. Ghousiya Tanzeem — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:8331 WP No. 6297 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.6297 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. MUDASSIR JABIR, S/O LATE JAMSHEED AHMAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT: OPPOSITE TO BSNL OFFICE, GULLANPETE VILLAGE, CHIKKAMANGALURU - 577101

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. Y.N. ASHWATH REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI. SHIVASHANKARA Y. D., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

SMT. GHOUSIYA TANZEEM, W/O SRI MUDASSIR JABIR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶16

MASTER AAMIR SULTAN AHMED, S/O SRI MUDASSIR JABIR, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:8331 WP No. 6297 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER GUARDIAN SMT GHOUSIYA TANZEEM, BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 489, 1ST MAIN, 8TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S.Z.F. RAZVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.A.H. RAZVI, ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.09.2023 PASSED ON IA NO.2 FILED UNDER SECTION 125(1) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PASSED BY THE 4^TH ADDL PRL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN CRL.MIS. NO.335/2022 BY THE ISSUE OF WRIT CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC:8331 WP No. 6297 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Sri.Y.N.Ashwath Reddy representing

¶30

Sri.Shivashankara.Y.D, learned counsel on record for the petitioner seeks time on the ground that there are chances of settlement of the matter between both the parties.

¶31

Sri.S.Z.F.Razvi representing Sri.S.A.H.Razvi,

¶32

learned counsel on record for respondents submits that there is no such proposal of settlement and the matter is not going to be settled but the petitioner only to drag on the proceedings has taken a new plea before this Court on this day. Learned counsel also states that petitioner is not

¶33

paying maintenance to the respondents and petitioner as on this day is liable to pay arrears of Rs.4,68,000/-.

¶34

On 22.01.2026 following order was passed:

¶35

"No representation on petitioner's side on call.

¶36

Sri. S.A.H. Razvi learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is present.

¶37

Record discloses that the petitioner is not evincing interest in the matter.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:8331 WP No. 6297 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

On 29.10.2025 following order was passed.

¶41

"At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, finally, a week's time granted. No further time will be granted".

¶42

However, on this day there is no representation on petitioner's side. To give fair opportunity, list the matter on 11.02.2026. In case the petitioner fails to represent the matter on that day, the writ petition will be dismissed for non-prosecution."

¶43

The aforementioned order clearly goes to show that petitioner has not evinced any interest in pursuing the writ petition. Though number of opportunities were granted to the petitioner to make his submission on the merits of the matter, petitioner did not do so. The alleged proposal of settlement is denied vehemently by respondents' counsel. Learned counsel who represents the petitioner failed to argue on the merits of the matter. Thus having no other go, writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶44

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶45

NS CT:TSM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41

Sri. Mudassir Jabir, v. Smt. Ghousiya Tanzeem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mudassir Jabir, v. Smt. Ghousiya Tanzeem

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

Mrs. Shalini D.S. Vs Mr. Theertha

Jayantha Vs Manasa R

Sri I. Vijayaraghavan, Vs Smt. Seetha Bopaiah

Mrs Ragalapally Krishnaveni Vs Mr Doddi Sunil Kumar

Smt. Rajeshwari S H, Vs Sri Varun R

Jawahar R S Vs Savitha Sarangapani