Karnataka High Court
Makabulahamad S/O. Riyajahamad ... vs Smt Ruhitaj W/O. Makabulahamad ... on 28 June, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
RPFC No. 100006 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO.100006 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MAKABOOLAHAMAD S/O. RIYAJAHAMAD TILAVALLI,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: NAGENDRAMATTI, MAIN ROAD,
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI - 581 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRINIVAS KRISHNA NAIK AND
SRI CHETAN S. BHOVI, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. SMT. RUHITAJ W/O. MAKABOOLAHAMAD TILAVALLI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O:SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, HAVERI,
NOW AT, SHIVYOGESHWAR NAGAR, 1ST CROSS,
Digitally signed HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI - 581 110.
by V N
BADIGER
Location: High 2. KUM. INSIYA D/O. MAKABOOLAHAMAD TILAVALLI,
Court of
Karnataka AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS,
R/O: SHIVABASAVA NAGAR, HAVERI, NOW AT,
SHIVAYOGESHWAR NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 110.
3. KUM. MEHAK D/O. MAKABOOLAHMAD TILAVALLI,
AGED ABOUT 1 YEAR 5 MONTH,
R/O: SHIVABASAV NAGAR, HAVERI,
NOW AT, SHIVAYOGESHWAR NAGAR,
1ST CROSS, HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI - 581 110.
...RESPONDENTS
(R1 IS SERVED;
R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
RPFC No. 100006 of 2024
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT IS FILED UNDER
SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT DATED 20.10.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL
JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT HAVERI, IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS
NO.140/2022, DATED 20.10.2023, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A, BY
ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. This petition is by the petitioner - husband being
aggrieved by the order, dated 20th October 2023, passed in
Crl. Misc. No.140/2022 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family
Court, Haveri, by which the petition filed by respondent
Nos.1 to 3 being the wife and the children of the petitioner
herein under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. seeking direction to
the petitioner - husband to pay monthly maintenance has
been partly allowed directing the petitioner - husband to
pay Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 - wife and Rs.1,500/-
each to respondent Nos.2 & 3 - children, till they get
married, from the date of petition.
2. The above petition was filed by the respondents
contending that the marriage of the petitioner herein with
respondent No.1 was solemnized on 26.04.2017 as per the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
Muslim Personal Law. That, respondent Nos.2 & 3 - are the
children born to them on on 22.08.2019 & 19.06.2022
respectively. That, initially for about two years, respondent
No.1 and the petitioner led happy married life. However,
thereafter the petitioner subjected respondent No.1 to
physical and mental harassment and cruelty on flimsy &
trivial matters including she delivering female child. Even
the family members of the petitioner - husband subjected
respondent No.1 for harassment, abusing her in the
presence of others lowering her image and dignity. They
insisted that, respondent No.1 to bring amount enabling the
petitioner to purchase a car from her parental house, which
was also satisfied. That, the petitioner in collusion with his
mother, picked up a quarrel with her demanding additional
dowry and inability to meet the requirement she was
abused in a filthy language. When after second delivery,
she went back to her matrimonial house she was not
allowed to enter the home. Unbearable of the harassment
and physical abuse, respondent No.1 - wife filed a Police
complaint on 02.08.2022 in Crime No.55/2022; due to the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
harassment, respondent No.1 suffered severe illness and
she was not taken care by the petitioner. That, respondent
No.1 had purchased a Scooty for her to use and she was
also given certain gold ornaments by her parents.
Respondent No.1 become physically infirm due to the
mental / physical harassment given to her by petitioner;
she had no independent source of income for her life, that
she requires Rs.25,000/- p.m. towards her medical and
other expenses. That, petitioner had four houses in his
name at Nagendranamatti and one Auto bearing
registration No.KA-58/0164, from which he was earning
Rs.1,000/- per day and that apart he also owning a Car
bearing registration No.KA-27/B-1818, from which he was
earning Rs.2,000/- per day. He also has income of more
than Rs.1,00,000/-. On these grounds, maintenance was
sought.
3. The petitioner - husband filed statement of
objections admitting the marriage and birth of the children,
but denied the allegations of he and his family members
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
causing physical harassment to respondent No.1 - wife. It
is contended that, after the marriage, respondent No.1
refused to lead normal marital life, demanding luxurious
life, which could not be afforded by the petitioner; any
advice on her, did not make any change, resulting she often
getting upset and taking up quarrel and abusing the
petitioner, insulting him that he was only an Auto driver and
she had better options to marry, but for him. That,
respondent No.1 was a B.A. Graduate and was working as a
Assistant Computer Operator in the Social Welfare
Department and was earning sufficient amount. That, when
she was pregnant with second time, the petitioner himself
had advised her not to go to the said job as the same would
affect on health of the baby, which was not agreed by her,
which resulted in she leaving to her parental house.
Thereafter, the petitioner had approached the local Jamath.
Along with them, he approached the parental house to take
her back. However, they were not given any respect. That,
respondent No.1 on many occasions had threatened the
petitioner - wife of she committing suicide. That, she is
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
taking undue advantage of innocence of the petitioner at
the instigation of the mother and sisters. Respondent No.1
was behaving with cruel manner only to force the petitioner
to make separate house. That, the petitioner is always
ready and willing to lead happy marital life with the
respondents. That, the petitioner is SSLC failed and is
working as a Driver in Auto Rickshaw of some other person.
He does not have any source of income. He does not own
any immovable properties. On the other hand, respondent
No.1 was working as Assistant Computer Operator in Social
Welfare Department at Haveri and earning Rs.100,00/- per
month. She is capable of earning and meeting her
requirements, as such she was not entitled maintenance.
Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
4. The respondent No.1 - wife examined himself as
PW1 and got exhibited 21 documents as Exs.P1 to P21 and
closed her side. The petitioner - husband examined himself
as RW1 and exhibited one document marked as Ex.R1. The
parties filed their affidavits of assets and liabilities. The
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
Family Court, based on the pleadings and evidence framed
the points for its consideration and csme to the conclusion
that respondent had established the deliberate negligence
on the part of the petitioner - husband in not providing
maintenance without any reasonable cause and also found
that respondent No.1 - wife was not working and
considering the resources and ability of the petitioner -
husband, directed him to pay monthly maintenance of
Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1 and Rs.1,500/- each to
respondent Nos.2 & 3 respectively. Aggrieved by the same,
the petitioner - husband is before this Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of
petition submits that the petitioner - husband neither
neglected nor refused to maintain the respondents and he
was still ready and willing to lead life with them. It is only
the non-cooperation of respondent No.1, which had led to
the situation. It is further contended that, the petitioner has
no independent source of income as claimed by respondent
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
- wife. On the other hand respondent No.1 - wife was
working as Assistant Computer Operator in Social Welfare
Department and earning monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-. As
such, these aspects of the matter have not been taken into
consideration by the Family Court, while awarding
maintenance. Hence, seeks for setting aside of the same.
6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that, there is
no dispute with regard to the marital relationship between
the petitioner and respondent No.1 and also there is no
dispute with regard to respondent Nos.2 & 3 being their
children. The Family Court on appreciation of the evidence,
more particularly, filing of the complaint by respondent
No.1 before the Haveri Woman Police Station in Crime
No.55/2022, as per Exs.P7 & P8 alleging harassment at the
hands of the petitioner and his family members and the
same having not been challenged by the petitioner -
husband and has come to the conclusion that, it is only the
extreme harassment caused to respondent No.1 by the
petitioner and his family members, constrained her to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
take extreme steps of lodging the complaint as per Exs.P7 &
P8. It also come to the conclusion that, there was thus
sufficient materials to hold that the petitioner - husband
had refused / neglected to maintain respondents. Though,
the petitioner had claimed that he is ready and willing to
take back the respondents. No material was produced by
him to demonstrate his intention of he taking any steps to
lead happy life with them. Further, the Family Court has
appreciated the fact that, though, respondent No.1 was B.A.
Graduate on and after she becoming pregnant for the
second child she admittedly stopped working. It was also
held that, merely because she was a B.A. Graduate, it was
not sufficient to come to the conclusion that she would be
able to maintain herself.
7. On the other hand, the petitioner who is
admittedly earning from his Auto Rickshaw and also owning
a Car as per Ex.P4, which was sufficient enough to come to
the conclusion that he was capable of earning / providing
maintenance to the respondents. Accordingly, the Family
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:8808
Court awarded monthly maintenance amount of Rs.5,000/-
to respondent No.1 - wife and Rs.1,500/- each to
respondent Nos.2 & 3 - children, till they attain the age of
marriage, from the date of petition.
8. The monthly maintenance awarded by the Family
Court based on the evidence, facts & circumstances of the
matter and the same, as opined by the Family Court at
paragraph No.34 are to meet the basic requirements of
foot, cloth, shelter, medicine and education, and the same
cannot be found to be excess or exorbitant.
9. No grounds are made out warranting
interference. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE
VNP*/CT-ASC
