Karnataka High Court
Shri Anees Ahmed S/O Nazeer Ahmed Morab vs Smt. Nishathsultana Sheikh W/O Anees ... on 15 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:568
RPFC No. 100220 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100220 OF 2023 (-)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. ANEES AHMED
S/O. NAZEER AHMED MORAB,
AGE. 44 YEARS,
OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE
R/O.C/O. MEHABOOBI ALIAS ZABEEN PATEL,
R/H.NO.132, PATEL VILLA, HARLISAL,
BHATKAL, U.K.PIN 581320
AND ALSO AT FLAT NO.2016, 2ND FLOOR,
R.K.COMFORTS APARTMENTS,
BEHIND SUNDAR HOSPITAL,
2ND CROSS HONNUR, MAIN ROAD,
PLILANNA GARDEN CROSS,
STREET, SAINT THOMOS TOWNS
BENGALURU-5600884.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
VN
BADIGER AND:
Digitally signed
SMT. NISHATHSULTANA SHEIKH
by V N W/O. ANEES AHMED MORAB
BADIGER
Date: D/O. ABDUL REHMAN SHEIKH,
2025.01.20 AGE. 38 YEARS,
11:01:00 +0530
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
C/O. A.M.SHIKH, SDP (RETD)
R/O. CCB 4, 1ST CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
BELAGAVI
DIST. BELAGAVI-5600884.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. KAVITA S. JADHAV ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARUN L.
NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:568
RPFC No. 100220 of 2023
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT
ACT, 1984, PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2023 PASSED
BY THE I ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI, IN
CRIMINAL MISC.NO.200/2019, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY
ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION WITH COST IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent
challenging the order dated 08.09.2023 in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.200/2019 on the file of I Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short, hereinafter referred to
as 'Family Court'), awarding maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per
month to the petitioner-wife from the respondent-husband.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranking before the Family Court.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that marriage
between the petitioner and respondent was held during
December 2008 at Belagavi. It is stated by the petitioner that
she is graduate in Master of Business Administration and her
father was a retired police officer. It is stated in the petition
that, the petitioner was neglected by the respondent to provide
NC: 2025:KHC-D:568
basic necessities and also the family of the respondent were
pressurized the petitioner to get dowry as demanded during the
marriage and she also stated that the marriage with the
respondent was not consummated and the respondent is
suppressed his inability to procreate the child, and accordingly,
the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and residing in her
parental house and as such the petitioner has filed Criminal
Miscellaneous No.200/2019 seeking maintenance from the
respondent.
5. The respondent entered appearance by filing
statement of objection and stated that the petitioner-wife
herself was adamant and went to her matrimonial home at
Belagavi voluntarily. It is also stated in the statement of
objection that the petitioner-wife is MBA graduate and was
working earlier to the marriage and has left the job.
Accordingly, the respondent sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. The Family Court based on evidence on record by
its order dated 08.09.2023, allowed the claim petition in part
and granted maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month to the
petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-
husband has preferred this petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:568
7. Heard Sri. J. S. Shetty, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Smt. Kavita S. Jadhav learned counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri. Anil L. Neelopant, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
contended that the respondent-wife is MBA graduate and she is
capable of earning on her own and the said aspect has not been
considered by her family. It is also contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Family Court
without any basis, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner-
husband is working in a Film Industry for more than 20 years
and accordingly, arrived at a conclusion to direct the petitioner-
husband to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.40,000/- which is
without any basis and on higher side and accordingly, sought
for interference of this Court.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-wife sought to justify the impugned order passed
by the Family Court and submitted that the petitioner herein is
in Film Industry for more than 20 years and also having
immovable property at Bhatkal and therefore, taking into
consideration the monthly income of the petitioner herein is
NC: 2025:KHC-D:568
concerned, award of Rs.40,000/- per month is just and proper
and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petitioner.
10. Having heard the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute with regard to the
relationship between the parties. It is also forthcoming from
the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
parties that O.S.No.60/2017 was filed by the respondent herein
seeking dissolution of the marriage and the said suit came to
be decreed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,
Belagavi vide judgment and decree dated 08.09.2023
dissolving the marriage between the parties. In the backdrop
of these aspects, on careful examination of the finding recorded
by the Family Court would indicate that though the petitioner
herein was working in promotion of films, however, same was
denied by him. However, taking into consideration the finding
recorded at paragraph No.23 of the impugned order, I am of
the view that, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is
without any basis of granting maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per
month. Taking into account the status of the petitioner herein
wherein, no document has been produced before the Family
Court, to substantiate that the petitioner herein is having
NC: 2025:KHC-D:568
monthly income to pay the maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per
month to the respondent herein. In that view of the matter, in
the absence of the acceptable documents, the Family Court has
awarded maintenance of Rs.40,000/- per month which requires
to be interference in this petition. However, it does not
disentitle to the respondent herein to get the maintenance from
the petitioner herein. Taking into note of factual aspects on
record and also the status of the respondent-wife wherein she
is residing at Belagavi city, maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per
month is just and proper.
11. Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Award of
maintenance of Rs.40,000/- is reduced to Rs.25,000/- per
month to be payable by the petitioner herein to the
respondent-wife for livelihood of respondent herein from the
date of petition before the Family Court.
12. Amount in deposit by the petitioner herein to be
paid to the respondent herein upon due identification.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SMM/CT:ANB
