Karnataka High Court
Alina D/O Jameelahmed Punekar vs Shri Jameelahmed S/O Maheboobsab ... on 10 September, 2024
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932
RPFC No. 100038 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100038 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. ALINA D/O. JAMEELAHMED PUNEKAR,
AGE:10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
2. MAIRA D/O. JAMEELAHMED PUNEKAR,
AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. SMT.RUBINA W/O. JAMEELAHMED PUNEKAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE.
ALL RESIDING AT WARD NO.4,
DARGA JAIL ROAD, SHAKTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT VINAYAK NAGAR, BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI IRANAGOUDA K. KABBUR, ADV.)
AND:
SHRI JAMEELAHMED S/O. MAHEBOOBSAB PUNEKAR,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BANK SERVICE,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
R/O: WARD NO.4, DARGA JAIL ROAD,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
HAKTI NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR.
Court of Karnataka
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.L.BATAKURKI, ADV.)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.12.2023, PASSED IN
CRIL.MISC. NO.60/2021, BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT
AT BAGALKOTE, IN PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAINTENANCE PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN, IN PART DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT TO PAY MONTHLY MAINTENANCE OF RS.2,500/- TO
THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
THEIR MARRIAGE, AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENT TO
pay MAINTENANCE AS PRAYED BEFORE THE TRAIL COURT, IN THE
ENDS OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932
RPFC No. 100038 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER
ORAL ORDER
Challenging order dated 20.12.2023 passed by Principal
Judge, Family Court, Bagalakote in Crl.Misc.No.60/2021, this
petition is filed.
2. Sri Iranagouda K. Kabbur, learned counsel for
petitioner submitted that marriage of petitioner no.3 and
respondent was solemnized at Bagalakote on 24.10.2010.
From wedlock, petitioners no.1 and 2 were born. It was
submitted, petitioner no.1 is suffering from heart ailment. It
was submitted, due to subsequent marital discord, petitioner
no.3 and respondent were residing separately. Therefore
petitioners had filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., for
maintenance. On contest, said petition came to be allowed in
part, insofar as petitioners no.1 and 2 while in case of
petitioner no.3 it was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, present
petition was filed.
3. It was submitted, no reasons were assigned by
Family Court for fixing monthly maintenance of Rs.2,500/-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932
each to petitioners no.1 and 2, while rejection of petition of
petitioner no.3 was only by referring to her employment and
income and taking note of second marriage entered into by
respondent. It was submitted merely on ground that
respondent entered into another marriage, would not
dispense with requirement of maintaining petitioner no.3.
Therefore order impugned called for interference.
4. On other hand, Sri N.L.Batakurki, learned counsel
for respondent sought to oppose revision petition.
5. It was submitted, as per Ex.P.8, petitioner no.3
was working as Lecturer in Senior scale and earning gross
salary of Rs.1,20,416/- per month, with net salary of
Rs.89,733/-. Therefore, submitted that, rejection of petition
for maintenance in respect of petitioner no.3 was fully
justified. It was further submitted that as per Annexures-R.1
and R.2, respondent was working in Karnataka Vikas
Grameena Bank with gross salary of Rs.50,171/- and net
salary of Rs.33,332/-. Since salary of petitioner no.3 was
more than double that of respondent, Family Court had
rightly rejected petition. It was submitted, claim was not
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932
supported by documents about quantum of maintenance
needed as observed by Family Court. In that light there were
no good grounds to interfere and sought for dismissal.
6. Heard learned counsel and perused petition
record.
7. From above, point that requires to be considered
is as follows:
"Whether impugned order suffers from error of
jurisdiction, perversity or material irregularity and
calls for interference?
8. Insofar as petitioner no.3, claim for maintenance
is rejected. Rejection is based on income of petitioner no.3
as shown in Ex.P.8. Ex.P.8 discloses that, her gross salary
was at Rs.1,20,416/- and net salary of Rs.89,733/-. This
would indicate that, she is fully capable of maintaining
herself.
9. Besides as per Exs.R.1 and R2, income of
respondent is nearly half that of petitioner no.3. Therefore,
even claim on basis of status of respondent would not be
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932
justified. Therefore, order insofar as rejection of petition of
petitioner no.3, does not suffer from any error calling for
interference.
10. Insofar as petitioners no.1 and 2, in para no.12 of
impugned order, Family Court has observed that petitioner
no.3 has not given any breakup of amount required for
maintenance of children. Except Ex.P.7-medical report, which
would indicate that petitioner no.1 has some heart ailment,
there is no material on quantum of maintenance needed. At
same time, taking note of fact that petitioner no.3 is earning
Rs.1,20,416/- and respondent is earning Rs.50,171/-,
fixation of monthly maintenance to petitioners no.1 and 2 at
Rs.2,500/- each would be grossly insufficient. Failure to take
note of income of both parents and that this would be a case
of joint parenting wherein both contribute equally for
maintenance of children, would be a material irregularity
calling for interference.
11. Since, petitioners have not placed relevant
material regarding expenses towards education, etc., it
would be appropriate to remit matter back to Family Court
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932
for fresh consideration reserving liberty to petitioners no.1
and 2 to lead further evidence by fixing interim maintenance
till fresh determination. Hence, point for consideration
answered partly 'in affirmative' insofar as petitioner no.1 and
2 and 'in negative' insofar as petitioner no.3. Consequently,
following.
ORDER
i. Revision petition insofar as petitioner no.3
stands dismissed.
ii. Revision petition insofar as petitioners no.1
and 2 is allowed in part.
iii. Matter is remitted back to Family Court for
fresh consideration with liberty to parties to
lead further evidence insofar as quantum of
maintenance.
iv. Since both parties are represented, they are
directed to appear before Family Court on
21.10.2024, without awaiting fresh notice.
v. Registry to transmit Trial Court Records to
Family Court, Bagalakote well before said
date. Thereafter parties to cooperate for early
conclusion of matter. Family Court is directed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12932
to dispose of petition afresh as for as possible
within an outer limit of four months.
vi. Till then, respondent is directed to pay interim
maintenance at rate of Rs.4,000/- per month
to each of petitioners no.1 and 2, which shall
be interim maintenance and Family Court
would be at liberty to determine it
appropriately based on evidence placed on
record.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM
CT-ASC:
