Karnataka High Court
Mustaq Ahmed S/O Alha Baksh vs Smt Mamtaz W/O Mustaq Ahmed on 13 November, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16624
CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100327 OF 2022 (397 OF
CR.P.C./438 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MUSTAQ AHMED S/O. ALHA BAKSH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O. KANCHAGAR ONI,
TALUK: HANGAL-581104, DIST: HAVERI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIJAY S. CHINIWAR, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SMT. MAMTAZ W/O. MUSTAQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: TAILORING,
2. KUM. AFTAB AHAMDED S/O. MUSTAQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA
KALMATH
3. KUMARI AFREEN BANU D/O. MUSTAQ AHMED,
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
4. KUMARI FAITHMA D/O. MUSTAQ AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
RESPONDENT NO.4 IS MINOR
REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER
RESPONDENT NO.1
ALL ARE R/O. C/O. ABDUL MAJID KHAN KARGADDE,
GOODLUCK ROAD, ABUD UBEDA MASJID,
BHATKAL - 581320, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.R. GUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R3.)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16624
CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO
QUASH THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.09.2021 IN
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.46/2019 PASSED BY THE II
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR
AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.11.2018
PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BHATKAL IN CRIMINAL
MISC. NO.109/2016 AND ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for respondents.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner who is the
husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondents No.2
to 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment in Criminal
Revision Petition No.46/2019 dated 20.09.2021 passed by
II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada,
Karwar, whereby the judgment of the Prl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bhatkal, dismissing the petition filed by the
respondents in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.109/2016
came to be reversed and the petition came to be allowed by
granting maintenance to an extent of Rs.1,000/- per month
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16624
each to all the respondents on the challenge made by the
respondents before the Sessions Judge.
3. It is the vehement contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner husband that he had not
participated in the proceedings before the Sessions Court
and he was placed exparte. No doubt he admits the
relationship with respondent No.1 to be his legally wedded
wife and respondents No.2 to 4 being his children. But he
contends that the impugned order in reversing the judgment
of the trial Court by the Sessions Judge, is perverse, illegal
as no opportunity was given to him, so also the petitioner
herein was unable to put forth his case. He further contends
that the marriage is 22 years old and as on the date of filing
of the petition before the trial Court, 17 years had passed by
when frivolous and false allegations were made against the
petitioner. Having considered all the details and taking into
consideration the evidence and materials placed on record,
the trial Court rightly rejected the petition filed by the
respondents. However, the Sessions Court on challenge in
Revision Petition, reversed the same and granted
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16624
maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month to each of the
respondents.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that he is
not liable to pay the maintenance as respondent No.1 is
gainfully employed and she supported by her brother who is
working in Dubai, more so respondent No.1 has refused to
join the petitioner despite the petitioner filing an application
for restitution of conjugal rights against respondent No.1 and
as a counter blast the present petition for maintenance
under section 125 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed.
5. Learned counsel for respondents submits that
before the Sessions Court in a Revision Petition filed by
respondents, nothing prevented the petitioner to appear and
file his objections and contest the matter. He has
conveniently remained absent. Therefore, left with no other
alternative, the learned Sessions Judge has considered the
material on record and passed the order which does not call
for interference. Moreover, there is no dispute with regard to
the marriage and the children being born from the marriage.
Despite the order being passed, the petitioner has not paid a
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16624
single penny to the respondents. If he was a responsible
husband and a responsible father, he should have
volunteered to pay for the maintenance of the wife and the
children.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, the
fact remains that the respondent had not participated in the
proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal
Revision Petition No.46/2019, filed by the respondents
herein. Therefore, it is an exparte order in the absence of
petitioner. The petitioner having approached this Court and
willing to take back respondent No.1 wife, it is appropriate to
remand this matter back for fresh consideration to provide
an opportunity to the petitioner and make his appearance,
contest the matter and to provide a fair opportunity of
hearing before any orders are passed. The respondent shall
deposit 50% of the arrears amount of maintenance granted
by the Sessions Court within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. He is permitted to
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16624
contest the matter and raise all the grounds which are raised
before this Court. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is disposed of.
ii) The impugned order dated 20.09.2021, passed in
Crl.R.P.No.46/2019, by the II Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, is hereby set aside.
iii) The matter is remanded to the learned
II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada,
Karwar, to be considered afresh.
iv) The petitioner is permitted to contest the matter
and put forth his say urging all grounds which are pleaded
before this Court.
v) Both the parties are directed to appear before the
learned Sessions Judge on 26.12.2024 without awaiting any
further notice from the Court.
vi) It is needless to mention that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16624
vii) The learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the
matter within a period of six months from the date of
appearance of the parties.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-MCK
