Karnataka High Court
Sri Mohammed Azeez Ulla vs Smt Shagufta Parveen on 22 December, 2021
Bench: R. Nataraj
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
R.P.F.C. NO.61 OF 2021
C/W
R.P.F.C. NO.131 OF 2021
IN R.P.F.C. NO.61/2021:
BETWEEN:
SHAGUFTA PARVEEN
W/O MOHAMMED AZEEZ ULLA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT #5, PINNAIAH COMPOUND
SIDDAGANGA PETROL BUNK
KYATHASANDRA
TUMAKURU CITY
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SHAKUNTALA VISHWANATHAYYA
RACHOTIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHAMMED AZEEZ ULLA
S/O M.M. JANAB SHARIFF
@ M.M. BABU SAHEB
R/AT NO.197, VENKATAPPA PALYA
HAROKYATHANAHALLI ROAD
MAKALI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MANU SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)
2
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2021 PASSED
IN CRL.MIS.NO.194/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, C/C OF
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.PC., FOR
MAINTENANCE.
IN R.P.F.C. NO.131/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI. MOHAMMED AZEEZ ULLA
S/O M.M. JANAB SHARIFF
@ M.M. BABU SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.197, VENKATAPPA PALYA
HAROKYATHANAHALLI ROAD
MAKALI POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562 123
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.MANU SHANKAR S.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. SHAGUFTA PARVEEN
W/O MOHAMMED AZEEZ ULLA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT #5, PINNAIAH COMPOUND
SIDDAGANGA PETROL BUNK
KYATHASANDRA
TUMAKURU CITY-572 103
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. SHAKUNTALA VISHWANATHAYYA
RACHOTIMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.03.2021 PASSED
IN CRL.MIS.NO.194/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL
3
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, C/C, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.PC., FOR
MAINTENANCE.
THESE RPFCs ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
RPFC No.61/2021 is filed by the wife for
enhancement of maintenance awarded by the Prl.
Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru in
Crl.Misc.No.194/2019 by order dated 31.03.2021,
while RPFC No.131/2021 is filed by the husband
challenging the grant of maintenance at the rate of
Rs.5,500/- per month.
2. The marriage of the parties herein was
performed on 23.04.2017 at Tumakuru. It is claimed
that the husband had received a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-
from his in-laws. A dispute amongst the family
members arose when the gold ornaments given to the
bridegroom turned out to be fake and from then on,
the matrimonial relationship between the parties
dipped southwards. It is alleged that the husband
mounted his demand for additional dowry which
compelled the wife to lodge a complaint on
29.07.2019 and Cr.No.355/2019 was registered. On
21.01.2019, wife lodged another complaint and later
both the parties arrived at a settlement to continue
with the matrimonial relationship. However, she
alleged that her husband failed to fulfill his duty. She
claimed that her husband was an M.com graduate and
was employed as a Supervisor at Sony India Pvt. Ltd.,
and was earning sum of Rs.40,000/- per month, while
her father-in-law was doing business in apparel. She
claimed that family members of her husband were
financially effluent. She claimed that she was driven
out of the house and was residing with her brothers
and her mother. She thereafter filed a petition under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of sum of
Rs.20,000/- per month.
3. This petition was opposed by the husband
who admitted relationship. He alleged that his wife
was not co-operative in the marriage. He alleged that
she was arrogant and did not respect elders in the
family and wanted to setup a separate house away
from his parents. He alleged that it was his wife who
left the matrimonial house along with the belongings
including jewels and clothes on 23.02.2019 without
any intimation to any of the family members. As a
result, he alleged that he was deprived of the marital
bliss and was forced to file a petition in
O.S.No.384/2019 for dissolution of marriage. He also
alleged that due to the act of desertion, he lost his
employment and was finding it difficult to meet his
day today needs. He claimed that he had the
responsibility to take care of his aged parents and
therefore, was not liable to pay any maintenance.
4. Based on these rival contentions, the case
was set down for trial. The wife was examined as
PW.1 and she marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P2.
The husband was examined as RW.1. The trial Court
found from the cross examination of the husband that
he had received Rs.3,40,000/- from his in-laws. The
trial Court also found that the husband was employed
at Sony India Pvt., Ltd., and was earning a sum of
Rs.40,000/- per month. Based on the above and
having regard to the conduct of the husband as
against the wife, the trial Court held that the wife was
justified in staying away from the husband and thus
passed an order directing the husband to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.5,500/- and also litigation
expenses of Rs.2,000/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision,
both the husband and wife have filed separate revision
petitions. While the wife claimed that maintenance
awarded by the trial Court was extremely less and
was not sufficient to take care of her basic necessities,
the husband claimed that she was residing along with
her parents and therefore, the maintenance awarded
is just and reasonable.
6. This Court directed the parties to file an
affidavit in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajnesh vs. Neha and another
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. The wife has filed her
affidavit claiming that her monthly expenses is a sum
of Rs.20,000/-. The husband has not filed any affidavit
disclosing his avocation, income from sources other
than his employment. However, he filed a statement
of accounts for the period 2017 to 2021 which
discloses that he is employed at Reliance Qwik Supply
Chain Pvt., Ltd., and is drawing a monthly salary of
Rs.34,964/-. Though he has contended that he has
aged parents to look after, he did not disclose the
other members in his family who were responsible to
look after them and he has also not disclosed the
income of his parents and properties held by him and
his parents.
7. It has to be noted that proceedings under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. cannot be determined with
mathematical precision. The very purpose of this
provision is to ensure that a person does not become
a destitute and the person liable to maintain him or
her should be reined in to perform his duty. However,
more often than not, the parties do not come out
clean in disclosing their means or their abilities to earn
money, making the task difficult for the Court to
decide. It is here that the Court tries to be pragmatic
and yet realistic while determining whether the person
claiming maintenance is able to maintain
himself/herself and if not who is liable and to what
extent. In the process, there could be heartburn to
either of the parties which is inevitable.
8. Having regard to the fact that the wife is
not employed, it is appropriate that taking in to
account the cost of living and rate of inflation that a
sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded as maintenance to the
wife.
9. In that view of the matter, RPFC
No.61/2021 filed by the wife is allowed. The impugned
order passed by the trial Court is modified and the
compensation awarded by the trial Court is enhanced
from a sum of Rs.5,500/- per month to a sum of
Rs.10,000/- per month. The said maintenance shall be
paid from 29.07.2021 till her life time or till she
remarries, whichever is earlier. Consequently, RPFC
No.131/2021 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NS
