Karnataka High Court
Mr Yaseer Arfath vs Mrs Umme Saniya on 8 January, 2024
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:909
RPFC No. 52 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 52 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR YASEER ARFATH
S/O ABDUL RAHIM
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/A DOOR NO. 1326, 2ND STAGE,
RAJIV NAGAR MYSURU
DISTRICT KARNATAKA : 570 001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. OMRAN GULAM AHMED KHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. MRS. UMME SANIYA
RAMYA D
W/O MR. YASEER ARFATH
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
2. INAYA SHAIKH
D/O YASEER ARFATH
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
(MINOR)
3. MR. IZHAAN ARFATH SHAIKH
S/O YASEER ARFATH
AGED ABOUT 1½ YEARS,
(MINOR)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:909
RPFC No. 52 of 2023
(BOTH RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3
REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN
RESPONDENT NO. 1)
ADDRESS AT NO. 2555/1,
EREKATTE STREET, LASHKAR
MOHALLA MYSURU - 570 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2&R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED U/S.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS
ACT 1984 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.01.2023. PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.551/2022 ON THE FILE
OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, MYSURU.
PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S.125 OF Cr.P.C
FOR MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The revision petition is filed by the petitioner-
husband challenging the judgment and order dated
16.01.2023 passed in Crl.Misc.No.551/2022 by IV Addl.
Prl. Family Judge, Mysuru, calling in question the grant of
maintenance to the respondents. The relationship between
the petitioner and respondents are not disputed.
NC: 2024:KHC:909
2. The revision petitioner is the husband of
respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. On
certain allegations, the respondents have filed petition
under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., praying to grant
maintenance amount to the respondents. It is stated that
the petitioner deserted the wife and children. Therefore,
the respondents were constrained to file petition before
the family Court and the family Court has granted
maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month to petitioner No.1
and Rs.5,000/- per month each to petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
The said order is challenged in this revision petition.
3. The family Court in detail has considered
the evidence on record and observed that the petitioner is
running gujari shop in large scale beside being the owner
of crane, which can be seen in photographs-Ex.P.9 and
Ex.P.10. The petitioner has admitted in the
cross-examination that he has taken his house on lease
basis by making payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and the
petitioner and his parents are residing in the said lease
NC: 2024:KHC:909
house. The family Court has also observed that the
petitioner is able to purchase two wheeler worth of
Rs.1,20,000/-. Even though, the petitioner has stated that
by raising loan that two wheeler was purchased, but no
evidence is produced before the Court that he has raised
loan for purchasing two wheeler worth of Rs.1,20,000/-.
Even though, if the petitioner has purchased two wheeler
by making payment of Rs.1,20,000/- or by raising loan, on
both counts, it is proved that the petitioner is financially
viable person. Further more, the petitioner has stated that
he is not the owner of gujari shop and working therein, but
the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that
the said gujari shop belongs to others.
4. Therefore, upon this preponderance of
probability, the family Court has correctly assessed the
evidence that the petitioner is a financially stable person.
The family Court has also observed that the petitioner has
arranged a rent house to his wife and children for
Rs.12,000/- per month, but that is not paid by the
NC: 2024:KHC:909
petitioner, due to which, electricity connection is
disconnected. All these are borne out from the evidence on
record. Hence, the family Court has correctly assessed,
analyzed and evaluated the evidence on record and rightly
come to the conclusion that the petitioner is a financially
viable person and he is able to give maintenance at
Rs.30,000/- per month to the wife and children and
accordingly, granted, which needs no interference.
5. The petitioner-husband is residing in
Mysore city. Therefore, for maintaining life in Mysore city,
this much amount is minimum required and that is
correctly observed by the family Court and accordingly,
granted, which needs no interference by this Court.
Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner-
husband has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha1 and submitted
AIR 2021 SC 569
NC: 2024:KHC:909
that unless both the parties file statement of assets and
liabilities, maintenance amount cannot be granted. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment has stated that
filing of statement of assets and liabilities is mode for
assessing the financial viability of the husband and wife.
Filing of assets and liabilities enables the Court to make
right assessment of the amount that the wife is required
for maintenance and in what capacity the husband is
financially viable. Therefore, just because, in the present
case, statement of assets and liabilities is not filed that
cannot be a ground to reject the maintenance petition filed
by the wife and children.
7. In the present case, the respondents
being the wife and children have produced sufficient
evidence to prove as to what is the financial status of the
petitioner-husband and that is correctly appreciated by the
family Court as discussed above. Therefore, the revision
petition is liable to be dismissed.
NC: 2024:KHC:909
8. Accordingly, the revision petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PB
