Karnataka High Court
Mrs Nilofer Khanum vs Mr Syed Mehmood Ali on 20 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:46763
RPFC No. 172 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO. 172 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. MRS. NILOFER KHANUM
W/O SYED MEHMOOD ALI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
2. MR. SYED ISMAIL
S/O SYED MEHMOOD ALI
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,
SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY MOTHER AND NATURAL
GUARDIAN NILOFER KHANUM
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.1395,
DASAPPA GARDEN, CHAMUNDINAGAR,
MAIN ROAD, R.T. NAGAR,
BAGALORE-560032
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.P.S. KHADRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by MR. SYED MEHMOOD ALI
SUMA S/O SYED HIDAYATHULLA,
Location: AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
HIGH
COURT OF R/AT FLAT NO.303, 3RD FLOOR,
KARNATAKA FIRDOZE APARTMENTS,
NEAR IRLA MASJID,
JUHU SCHEME,
MUMBAI-400049
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ANANDA N, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
24.02.2014 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.335/2005 ON THE FILE OF THE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:46763
RPFC No. 172 of 2015
IST ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT BENGALURU
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the judgment dated
24.02.2014 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in
C.Misc.No.335/2005 by which, a sum of Rs.1,000/- was
ordered to be paid as maintenance to petitioner No.1 and a
sum of Rs.500/- per month to petitioner No.2 from the date of
filing of the petition till the life time of petitioner No.1 or till she
remarry and till petitioner No.2 attains the age of majority.
2. The petitioners filed C.Misc.335/2005 before the I
Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming monthly maintenance of
Rs.12,500/- to both of them. They contended that petitioner
No.1 was given in marriage to the respondent on 18.05.2003
and they lived in Mumbai for a month. However, due to the
continuous demand for dowry, they could not live further.
Petitioner No.1 alleged that during October, 2003, the
NC: 2023:KHC:46763
respondent and his family members tried to kill her and
therefore, she came to Bengaluru to stay with her parents on
11.11.2003. She delivered petitioner No.2 at Bengaluru on
09.04.2004 and a function arranged for the naming of the child
was attended by the respondent and his parents, who
demanded an additional dowry of Rs.2,00,000/-. She claimed
that she had no source of income and dependant on her aged
parents. She claimed that petitioner No.2 was admitted at
George English School and that she was in need of a sum of
Rs.7,500/- per month to meet his educational expenses. She
therefore, prayed that a sum of Rs.12,500/- be awarded as
monthly maintenance to both of them.
3. The said petition was opposed by the respondent
who denied that he had treated the petitioners cruelly. He
contended that there was no contact with petitioner No.1 after
11.11.2003 and a false complaint was filed by petitioner No.1
in PCR No.15766/2004 alleging dowry harassment and cruelty.
He claimed that he divorced petitioner No.1, which was
intimated to her by a notice dated 30.09.2004 and also paid a
sum of Rs.3,786/- towards mehar. He alleged that all the
jewels were taken away by petitioner No.1 when she left her
NC: 2023:KHC:46763
matrimonial home. He claimed that father of petitioner No.1
had a lucrative business and was running S.R.K. Borewells at
CBI Road, Gangenahalli, Bengaluru and petitioner No.1 is
employed at HDFC Bank. He claimed that he was a tailor by
profession and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month under his
brother Mr. Kasim and therefore, he did not have any source of
income to pay any maintenance to the petitioners.
4. Petitioner No.1 was examined as PW.1 and she
marked Ex.P1, while respondent was examined as RW.1 and he
marked Exs.R1 to 11.
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court held that there was no dispute that petitioner No.1
was the wife of the respondent and though the respondent
claimed that petitioner No.1 was educated and employed, he
did not produce any document to establish the same. Petitioner
No.1 also did not produce any document to establish that the
respondent had any adequate source of income to pay a sum of
Rs.12,500/- per month. Therefore, the Trial Court taking into
consideration the fact that the petitioners were residing along
with parents of petitioner No.1, directed the payment of a sum
NC: 2023:KHC:46763
of Rs.1,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 during her lifetime
or till she get remarried and a sum of Rs.500/- per month till
petitioner No.2 attains the age of majority.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners
are before this Court seeking enhancement.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial
Court, petitioner No.1 had married another person and
therefore, her claim for maintenance is only from the date of
the petition till the date she got married i.e., during January,
2014. He also contended that petitioner No.2 is now a major
by age.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent has not
appeared. Therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of the
submission of the learned counsel for the respondent.
9. Having regard to the fact that the respondent did
not dispute that petitioner No.1 was his wife and petitioner
No.2 was his son and also having regard to the fact that the
respondent was a able-bodied man working at Mumbai, the
Trial Court ought to have awarded a reasonable amount of
NC: 2023:KHC:46763
maintenance taking into account the needs and necessities of a
person living in a Metropolitan City like Bengaluru. The Trial
Court also did not take into consideration the educational
expenses of petitioner No.2 but blindly awarded a sum of
Rs.1,500/- per month as maintenance for both of them. Having
regard to the fact that neither the petitioners nor the
respondent made any efforts to produce adequate materials to
establish the income of the respondent, in the fitness of things,
this Court considers it appropriate to award a sum of
Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No.1, which shall be from
the date of the petition filed before the Trial Court till January,
2014 when petitioner No.1 married another person. Since
petitioner No.2 has now attained the age of majority, he is
entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of
marriage till the date he attained the age of majority.
10. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed
in part. The monthly maintenance of Rs.1,500/- awarded by
the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru by its
judgment dated 24.02.2014 passed in C.Misc.No.335/2005 is
modified. The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance
at a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month to petitioner No.1 from the
NC: 2023:KHC:46763
date of filing of the petition before the Trial Court till January,
2014. He shall also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month to
petitioner No.2 from the date of filing the petition before the
Trial Court till the date he attained the age of majority.
11. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending
I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same
stand dismissed.
12. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
records forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMR
