Partly allowed

Syed Mustafa Abdul Khader v. Syeda Khatija Nausheen Fatima

Telangana HC2 Sept 2024CRLRC/707/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision filed against an order granting maintenance to minor children from the natural father, this court modified the maintenance amount payable during the interim period the children stayed with their maternal grandmother, while upholding the father's ultimate liability once custody was transferred.

What did the court decide?

Maintenance amount reduced from Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 5,000 per child for the interim period; father directed to deposit accrued arrears within two months.

Syed Mustafa Abdul Khader Vs Syeda Khatija… — Maintenance and Alimony | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^32ee ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 707 OF 2024

¶7

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Order dated 24-05-2024 made in M.C.No.16 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-Xlll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Syed Mustafa Abdul Khader, S/o Syed Abdul Salam Muneer, Age 34 Yrs Occ. Private Service, R/o. H.No. 16-9-4071N36 Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶10

...Revision Petitioner / Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Syeda Khatija Nausheen Fatima, D/o. Syed Mustafa Abdul Khader, Aged⁽⁰⁵⁾ Years

¶13

Syed Mujtaba Abdul Nasir, S/o. Syed Mustafa Abdul Khader, Aged^{(03) Years} Respondents / Petitioners being minors are represented by their maternal grand mother Mrs. Adeeba Afreen, Wo. Khusro Vilayatullah Khan, Age 50 Yrs, Occ. Catering Business, R/o. H.No. 20-2479, Johari Gally, Hussaini Alam, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶14

...Respondents / Petitioners

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶16

Petition under Section 482 of^Cr. P.C.^praying that^{in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may^be pleased to stay the execution of the order, passed by the Hon'ble Judge Principal Family Court-cum-Xlll Addl Metropolitan Session Judge, Hyderabad in MC 1612022 was pleased to partly allowing the Petition, direction the Respondent to pay Rs 7000/- (Rs Seven Thousand only) per month each to the Petitioners no 1 and 2, totalling to Rs 14,000/- (Rs Fourteen Thousand only) per month tougrds,

¶17

their maintenance from the date of filing of the petition till the date of their maternal grand parents handing over their custody to him, and the Respondent shall pay the arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition within three (03) Months from the date of this order, considering the above stated reasons and facts, pending disposal of the Main criminal Revision case, in the Interest of justice.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr Syed Ahmed AIi Counsel for the Respondents : Mr Shakeel Ahmed

¶19

The Court made the following Order :

(

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E. V. VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVTSION CASE No.7O7 OF 2024

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.O5.2024 in M.C.No. 16 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum-XllI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, "the trial Court").

¶26

Heard Mr. Syed Ahmed Ali, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and Mr. Shakeed Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent(s).

¶27

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother late Muniza Hasan Khan, married the respondent on 20.O4.2018, for a deferred Maher of Rs.25,000/- as per the Muslim Personal Law, at Hyderabad and out of u,edlock they urere blessed with two children on 09.11.2019 and 07.12.2O2O who are presently under the care and custody of maternal grandparents. After the marriage the petitioner's mother and respondent lived happily for about one month and thereafter respondent family members started her with a demand of additional dowry of Rs.5,00,000/-, upon which the family members of petitioner's mother arranged Rs.50,000/- and gave to the family of respondent and it rvas I

¶28

)

¶29

¶30

further disclosed that she was affected with lungs infection and she can give birth to the child and should not conceive for the second time, as the chances of surviving are very less.^Further, due to unbearable harassment of the^{respondent for wantof male} child, she delivered a female child for the second time and due^to deterioration of her health, she died on 06.06.202 I and^the respondent event did not attend the funerals of his wife with a view to avoid funeral expenses. Further, after expiry of petitioner's mother, respondent did not take care of the petitioners as such they were in custody of their material^grand parents. As petitioners maternal grand father is a^private employee and maternal grand mother is^parda nasheen lady, the respondent being the natural father of the minor children^is bound to maintain them. The respondent^{wronglyneglected and} refused to maintain the petitioners though the respondent is^an employee in MNC and earning monthly salary around Rs.70,0OO/- and also having independent house and^other immovable properties by which he is earning Rs.4O,OOO/-^per month. Therefore, petitioners have liled M.C.No.l6 of²⁰²² claiming maintenance. The learned trial Court vide impugned order granted maintenance of Rs.7,OOO/- to each petitioner totaling to Rs. 14,OOO/- from the date of Iiling of the petition till

I I

the date of their maternal grandparents handing over their custody to him and further directed that the respondent sha-ll pay the arrears of maintenance from the date of filing of the petition within (O3) months from the date of this order, for which the materna.l grandmother of the petitioner shall open a Savings Bank Account in any Nationalized Bank of her choice and furnish the Account Number to the respondent for compliaace of order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the present Revision.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are his biological children and infact he has to take care of the respondents who were in the custody of the maternal grandmother. He would further submit that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been forcibly taken by the maternal grandmother from the hospital where his wife stated to have been passed away. He would further submit that petitioner is not liable to pay maintenance for his children while they were in the custody of his maternal grandmother as she has forcibly taken the custody of the children without his consent. He further submitted that while this revision case is pending, as ordered by the learned.ta:llal Court, the respondent Nos. I and, 2 were handed

¶38

-l

¶39

over to him by maternal grandmother. Therefore, maternal grandmother is not entitled for maintenance and seeks to set aside the impugned order

¶40

Learned counsel for the un-official respondent would submit that in compliance of the orders passed by the learned trial Court children were handed over to the revision petitioner. karned counsel for the un-official respondent relied on the order passed by the Court below in SYED LIAQUAT HUSSAIN V. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOORL & OTHERST, the relevant portion of the said decision reads as under and the same is extracted below:

¶41

"Muslim law-Custody of child belout 7 gears-Principles oJ Mohammedan Lau bg Mr. Mulla, Paras 353 and. 357 - in the absence oJ mother the c.ustody of the child. fulou the age oJ 7 gears shall be with mother's rnother but not urith the Jather, irrespectiue oJ the Jact whether the Jather is Jit or unJit to hanrc the custod.g".

¶42

He would further submit that the maternal grandmother had handed over the children to revision petitioner on 27 .O7 .2O24 and till such time the grandmother is entitled to receive the maintenance from the revision petitioner as she has maintained

¶43

I zooz (o) nr-o r+s (og) \

I t

I I

the children who are biological children of revision petitioner and

¶52

hence seeks to dismiss this revision case.

¶53

Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and respondents, this Court does not see any ground or error to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court However, in view of the compliance of the order passed by the learned trial Court in part i.e., handing over of children to the revision petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to modif,y the maintenance amount from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.S,OOO/- each for the respondent Nos. I and 2 for the period of their stay in the custody of their maternal grandmother. Accordingly, revision petitioner is directed to deposit the arrears accrued till the date of handing over of children to the revision petitioner by the maternal grandmother to the credit of M.C.No. 16 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-cum,XIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad within a period of (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the learned trial Court is directed to permit the unofficial respondent to withdraw the said amount. Any delault committed by the revision petitioner to the orders passed herein

¶54

¶55

¶56

above, the lcarncd trial Court sha,ll take appropriate stepsⁱⁿ

¶57

accordance u,ith law.

¶58

7 . Accordinglv, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.

¶59

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K. SAILESHI DEPUTY^REGISTRAR //TRUE CoFY// v/ SECTION^OFFICER

¶60

¶61