Sikandar vs Smt.Shakeela
2022 Latest Caselaw 11338 Kant

                             -1-




                                    RPFC No. 100085 of 2016




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
     REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100085 OF 2016 (-)


BETWEEN:

     SIKANDAR S/O KALESAB HALSANGI,
     AGED ABOUT: 27 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC,
     R/O: RAMALINGESHWAR NAGAR,
     GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI,
     DIST: DHARWAD.



                                               ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.   SMT. SHAKEELA W/O SIKANDAR HALSANGI,
     AGED ABOUT: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O: DOOR NO.12, JANTA QUARTERS,
     BENGERI, HUBBALLI,
     DIST: DHARWAD.

2.   KUMARI SAFI D/O SIKANDAR HALSANGI,
     AGED ABOUT: 3 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
     R/O: DOOR NO.12, JANTA QUARTERS,
     BENGERI, HUBBALLI,
     SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
     NATURAL MOTHER KUMARI SAFI
     D/O SIKANDAR HALSANGI
     I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1.



                                             ...RESPONDENTS
                                -2-




                                     RPFC No. 100085 of 2016


(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR, REPTD. BY R1)

     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19 (4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:28.03.2016,
IN CRL.MISC. NO.74/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE/DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.

                            ORDER

This matter is listed for consideration of

I.A.No.1/2022 for appointment of Court guardian in

respect of minor respondent No.2 and this petition is filed

against an order for maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to the wife

and Rs.2,000/- to the child awarded in Criminal Misc.

No.74/2013.

2. The main contention of the petitioners is that,

the petitioner is working as mechanic along with his

brother in two wheeler repair workshop and getting a

salary of Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day and out of that, he

has to bear the rent of the shop and hence the amount

RPFC No. 100085 of 2016

awarded by the trial Court is exorbitant and the same has

to be reduced.

3. Having perused the order passed by the trial

Court, the trial Court in detail discussed while answering

point Nos.1 and 2 while arriving for directing the

respondent/petitioner herein to pay maintenance and

taken note of cost of leaving and standard of leaving and

taken note of the petitioner that he is doing two wheeler

repair works and considering the material on record and

also relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya Vs. State of

Gujarat and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 1809 and

considering the material on record, comes to the

conclusion that, the petitioner is bound to maintain the

wife and child and reasoning is also assigned while

answering point No.3 with regard to the quantum of

maintenance awarded and awarded an amount of

Rs.3,000/- to the petitioner No.1 and Rs.2,000/- to the

petitioner No.2, considering the age of the child and

RPFC No. 100085 of 2016

hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to interfere

with the findings of the trial Court.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would

vehemently contend that, the amount of Rs.3,000/- and

Rs.2,000/- awarded is on higher side and apart from that,

in the COVID period, he could not able to earn income due

to the closure of his mechanic shop and the same cannot

be a ground and the maintenance is awarded for livelihood

and to maintain herself and her child and hence, the said

contention also cannot be accepted and I do not find any

merit in the petition and hence, the same is dismissed as

no grounds.

5. In view of the disposal of the petition,

I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH