Baba Fakuruddin S/O Nabi Sab vs Lal Bee W/O Baba Facruddin And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3491 Kant

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                      BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

                RPFC NO.200063/2017
BETWEEN:

BABA FAKURUDDIN S/O NABI SAB
AGE 37 YEARS
OCC. CLASS II CONTRACTOR
R/O H.NO.215, CHIKKASAGUR VILLAGE,
SHAKTHINAGAR
TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584102

                                      ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     LAL BEE W/O BABA FAKRUDDIN
       AGE: 32 YEARS
       OCC. HOUSEHOLD

2.     MASTER MAHEBOOB PASHA
       S/O BABA FAKRUDDIN
       AGE: 14 YEARS
       OCC. STUDENT

3.     BABY MEHARAJ BANU
       D/O BABA FAKRUDDIN
       AGE: 12 YEARS
       OCC. STUDENT
                            2

4.   BABY MUSKAN
     S/O BABY FAKRUDDIN
     AGE: 10 YEARS
     OCCU. STUDENT
     ALL ARE MINORS REP.
     BY 1ST RESPONDENT NATURAL MOTHER
     R/O SHAKTHINAGAR
     TQ. & DIST. RAICHUR-584102

                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 R2 TO R4 MINORS REP. BY R1)


     THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S. 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER   DATED    05.04.2017,   PASSED   IN   CRL.   MISC
No.209/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, RAICHUR BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE SAID PETITION
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                       ORDER

The petitioner being the husband of the first

respondent and father of the rest is knocking the doors

of revision court for assailing the maintenance order

dated 05.04.2017 made by the Principal Judge of the

Family Court at Raichur allowing respondents' Criminal

Misc. Case No.209/2016 whereby a monthly

maintenance of `6,000/- to the first respondent-wife

and a monthly maintenance of `2,000/- to each of the

three children has been awarded.

2. After service of notice the respondent-wife

and children have entered appearance through their

counsel who was absent when the mater was taken up

for hearing; however, the absence of the counsel will not

absolve the court from its duty to adjudge the cause

brought before it by the grieving parties.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioners and having perused the papers this court

declines to grant indulgence in the mater for the

following reasons:

a. The relationship of the parties is not in

dispute; petitioner is the husband of the first

respondent; he has fathered three children and

thereafter he has espoused another woman; this act

itself amounts to cruelty as held by a Division Bench of

this court in the case of Shri Yusufpatel vs. Smt.

Ramjanbi reported in ILR 2021 KAR 746. Therefore,

the wife and children are more than justified in seeking

shelter away from the matrimonial home, so that, they

can avoid the physical assault and cruelty at the hands

of the petitioner.

4. These are costly days when blood has

become cheaper than the bread; the respondent wife

has to look after three growing children; the court after

considering all aspects of the matter has fixed `6,000/-

for the wife and `2,000/- to each of the children as the

monthly maintenance; by no stretch of imagination this

amount can be stated to be unreasonable; in fact,

arguably this amount is inadequate; be that as it may.

5. The vehement submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that he has already filed an

affidavit offering to look after the wife and children if

they come back; is difficult to accept; his further

contention that he has to look after the new spouse

hardly constitutes a justification for not paying

sustenance to the first wife and the children begotten

from her; he ought to have thought twice before

espousing the second lady that too, when he had

already three children from the first wife. by any

standard, the petitioner is at fault and therefore he

cannot be permitted to take the advantage of his own

fault of espousing another lady.

6. The court below has the accumulated

wisdom in treating the matters of the kind; it has

considered all aspects of the case and then awarded the

maintenance by making the impugned order; such

orders do not merit a deeper examination at the hands

of the Revisional Court, the scope of revision being very

restrictive.

7. In the above circumstances, this petition

being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and

accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

VNR