Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Shahaz Tegginmani vs Rushina Mahaveen And Anr on 3 January, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:81
RPFC No. 200038 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200038 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED SHAHAZ TEGGINMANI,
S/O DR. ABDULLAH TEGGINMANI,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
R/O H.NO. 1-1166/6,
OPP. HOUSE OF MALLESHAPPA ADVOCATE,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD, KALABURAGI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. RUSHINA MAHAVEEN
W/O MOHAMMED SHAHAZ TEGGINMANI,
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed
by SACHIN
Location:
HIGH COURT 2. MOHD. KHASIM S/O MOHAMMED SHAHAZ,
OF
KARNATAKA AGE. 12 YEARS, MINOR,
U/G OF NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1,
BOTH R/O H.NO. 1-116/6,
OPP: HOUSE OF MALLESHAPPA ADVOCATE,
AIWAN-E-SHAHI ROAD, KALABURAGI,
AT PRESENT C/O HOUSE OF JEVEED MEER,
F-6, NEAR ADARSH SCHOOL, BANK COLONY,
VAKKALGERA, NEAR NEHRU GUNJ,
KALABURAGI-585103.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.S.BIRADAR AND SRI.V.G.BIRADAR, ADVOCATES)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:81
RPFC No. 200038 of 2022
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY
SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED
04.10.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DISTRICT JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI IN CRL.MISC.NO.118/2016.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing order
dated 04.10.2019 in Crl.Misc.No.118 of 2016 on the file of
the District Judge, Family Court at Kalaburagi, awarding
maintenance to the respondents herein.
3. Having taken note of the of the submission of
learned counsel appearing for the parties, and the finding
recorded by the Family Court would establish the fact
that, the marriage between the petitioner with the
respondent No.1 was solemnized on 25.09.2009 at Mogal
Function Hall, Kalaburagi. In their wedlock, the respondent
No.2 is born. It is the case of the respondents herein
before the Family Court that, the petitioner herein had
taken money from the parents of respondent No.1 stating
NC: 2024:KHC-K:81
that, he is a Dentist and to start Dental clinic and as such,
he require money and thereafter, petitioner has not taken
care of the respondents herein. Hence, the respondents
have filed Crl.Misc.No.118 of 2016, seeking maintenance.
4. The petitioner herein entered appearance and
filed statement of objections and took up a contention
that, he is not working and he is unable to pay the
maintenance awarded by the Family Court and therefore,
he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The Family Court, after taking into
consideration the age of the petitioner herein as 35 years
held that, it is bounden duty of the petitioner to maintain
his wife and child and as such, awarded maintenance of
Rs.6,000/- per month to respondent No.1 and Rs. 4,000/-
per month to respondent No.2 herein, which is just and
proper. Therefore, I am of the view that, as the
respondents herein are residing at Kalaburgi city and
respondent No.2 has to pursue his education, the award of
maintenance granted by the Family Court is just and
NC: 2024:KHC-K:81
proper and it does not call for interference in this petition,
though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
vehemently contended the petitioner is not working. With
the above observations, the petition is dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SB
