Karnataka High Court

Mohamed Umar Seeni Ariff Khan vs Mrs. Tanzia Bano Alias Tanzia Banu on 7 July, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC:24423
                                                         MFA No. 366 of 2025
                                                     C/W MFA No. 332 of 2025
                                                         MFA No. 458 of 2025
                   HC-KAR                                      AND 1 OTHER


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                                                                           R
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                   MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2025 (CPC)
                                        C/W
                     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 332 OF 2025
                     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025
                     MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2025


                   IN MFA No.366 OF 2025

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.     MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
                          S/O LATE MOHAMED UMAR
                          AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

                   2.     MRS. MUMTAJ SEENI ARIFF KHAN
                          W/O MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
                          AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

                          BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.003
Digitally signed          GROUND FLOOR, SITE NO.524
by SHAKAMBARI
Location: High            AAKARSHAN ASPIRE, 42ND MAIN
Court of                  IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP
Karnataka                 RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
                          BENGALURU-560 098
                                                             ...APPELLANTS

                   (BY SRI. VARADARAJ RANGANATHA RAO HAVALDAR,
                       ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:24423
                                       MFA No. 366 of 2025
                                   C/W MFA No. 332 of 2025
                                       MFA No. 458 of 2025
HC-KAR                                       AND 1 OTHER


AND:

MRS. TANZIA BANO ALIAS TANZIA BANU
W/O LATE MR. IMRAN KHAN M.S
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT B-08, "UNIWORTH TRANQUIL ROW HOUSES'
DODDABELE ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU-560 060
REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER
MR. WASEEM PASHA
S/O WAHAB JAN
RESIDING AT NO.1846, WARD NO.29
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA DISTRCT
PIN-562 159

                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)


     THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151
OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED ON
I.A.NO.2 IN OS.NO.7645/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
SCCH-26, ALLOWING THE IA.NO.2 FILED UNDER ORDER 39
RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.


IN MFA No.332 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.     MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       S/O LATE MOHAMED UMAR
       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

2.     MRS. MUMTAJ SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       W/O MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
                            -3-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:24423
                                     MFA No. 366 of 2025
                                 C/W MFA No. 332 of 2025
                                     MFA No. 458 of 2025
HC-KAR                                     AND 1 OTHER


       BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.003
       GROUND FLOOR, SITE NO.524
       AAKARSHAN ASPIRE, 42ND MAIN
       IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP
       RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
       BENGALURU-560 098
                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VARADARAJ RANGANATHA RAO HAVALDAR,
    ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. TANZIA BANO ALIAS TANZIA BANU
W/O LATE MR. IMRAN KHAN M.S
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT B-08, "UNIWORTH TRANQUIL ROW HOUSES'
DODDABELE ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU-560 060
REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER
MR. WASEEM PASHA
S/O WAHAB JAN
RESIDING AT NO.1846, WARD NO.29
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA DISTRCT
PIN-562 159
                                       ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF THE
CPC AGAINST THE ORDER DTD.16.10.2024 PASSED ON IA
NO.1 IN O.S. NO.7645/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE X
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU
(CCH-26) ALLOWING IA NO.1 FILED U/O 39 RULE 1 AND 2 151
OF CPC.
                            -4-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC:24423
                                     MFA No. 366 of 2025
                                 C/W MFA No. 332 of 2025
                                     MFA No. 458 of 2025
HC-KAR                                     AND 1 OTHER


IN MFA No.458 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.     MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       S/O LATE MOHAMED UMAR
       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

2.     MRS. MUMTAJ SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       W/O MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

       BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.003
       GROUND FLOOR, SITE NO.524
       AAKARSHAN ASPIRE, 42ND MAIN
       IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP
       RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
       BENGALURU-560 098
                                         ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VARADARAJ RANGANATHA RAO HAVALDAR,
    ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. TANZIA BANO ALIAS TANZIA BANU
W/O LATE MR. IMRAN KHAN M.S
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT B-08, "UNIWORTH TRANQUIL ROW HOUSES'
DODDABELE ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU-560 060
REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER
MR. WASEEM PASHA
S/O WAHAB JAN
RESIDING AT NO.1846, WARD NO.29
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS
                            -5-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:24423
                                       MFA No. 366 of 2025
                                   C/W MFA No. 332 of 2025
                                       MFA No. 458 of 2025
HC-KAR                                       AND 1 OTHER


IJOOR, RAMANAGARA DISTRCT
PIN-562 159

                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A NO.4
IN O.S. NO.7645/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26),
REJECTING I.A. NO.4 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 OF
CPC.

IN MFA No.489 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1.     MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       S/O LATE MOHAMED UMAR
       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

2.     MRS. MUMTAJ SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       W/O MOHAMED UMAR SEENI ARIFF KHAN
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

       BOTH ARE R/AT FLAT NO.003
       GROUND FLOOR, SITE NO.524
       AAKARSHAN ASPIRE, 42ND MAIN
       IDEAL HOMES TOWNSHIP
       RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR
       BENGALURU-560 098
                                           ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. VARADARAJ RANGANATHA RAO HAVALDAR,
    ADVOCATE)

AND:

MRS. TANZIA BANO ALIAS TANZIA BANU
W/O LATE MR. IMRAN KHAN M.S
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
                            -6-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:24423
                                       MFA No. 366 of 2025
                                   C/W MFA No. 332 of 2025
                                       MFA No. 458 of 2025
HC-KAR                                       AND 1 OTHER


R/AT B-08, "UNIWORTH TRANQUIL ROW HOUSES'
DODDABELE ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU-560 060
REPRESENTED BY HER SPA HOLDER
MR. WASEEM PASHA
S/O WAHAB JAN
RESIDING AT NO.1846, WARD NO.29
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS
IJOOR, RAMANAGARA DISTRCT
PIN-562 159

                                             ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

     THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1 (r) OF CPC,

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 PASSED ON I.A. NO.6

IN O.S. NO.7645/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26),

REJECTING I.A. NO.6 FILED UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4

READ OF CPC.




     THESE MFAs HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,

COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,

DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
                                      -7-
                                                   NC: 2025:KHC:24423
                                                 MFA No. 366 of 2025
                                             C/W MFA No. 332 of 2025
                                                 MFA No. 458 of 2025
HC-KAR                                                 AND 1 OTHER


                        CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)

These four Misc. First Appeals are preferred

independently by the defendants in the suit, assailing the

legality and propriety of the common order dated

16.10.2024 passed by the X Addl. City Civil and Sessions

Judge, Benglauru, sitting at CCH No.26 on I.A.No.1, 2, 4

and 6 filed in OS No.7645/2023. By the impugned order,

the trial Court allowed the applications filed by the plaintiff

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC thereby, granted

temporary injunction restraining the defendants from

dispossessing the plaintiff or alienating or encumbering the

suit B-schedule property and simultaneously dismissed the

application filed by the defendants under Order 39 Rule 4

of CPC seeking to vacate the said injunctive order.

2. The factual matrix reveal that, the respondent

herein by name Mrs. Tanzia Bano alias Tanzia Banu filed a

suit for declaration, partition and injunction against the

appellants, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of late

NC: 2025:KHC:24423

HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

Imran Khan M.S., the son of appellants/defendants.

Plaintiffs' principal contention is that, she, during the

subsistence of her marriage transferred substantial

amounts both in Indian and US Currencies to her

husband's account and those funds were subsequently

utilized by the first defendant i..e her father-in-law to

acquire the suit schedule property. She has further

averred that, suit property was agreed to be purchased in

the name of defendant no.1 merely as a matter of

convenience, since the plaintiff and her husband were then

residing abroad, with an assurance that, it would

eventually be transferred back to them. It is also the

categorical assertion of the plaintiff that, she has remained

in possession of the suit schedule property even after

demise of her husband on 20.6.2023 and that attempts

are being made by the defendants to illegally dispossess

her and to alienate the property.


                                                    NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                                AND 1 OTHER

3. The appellants have disputed the marital status

of the plaintiff with their deceased son and have

categorically denied her claim over the property or her

possession thereof. They contend that, the purchase of the

property was made entirely from the funds of defendant

no.1 and that the plaintiff at best had been permitted to

temporarily stay in the property during the period of her

husband's illness and had no legal or possessory right

therein.

4. The learned trial Court has passed the

impugned order which is challenged in these appeals by

the defendants.

5. It is argued by the counsel for the appellants

that, no such marriage has taken place in between their

son Imran Khan and the plaintiff. It was defendant no.1

who contributed independently to purchase the suit

property. According to the appellants, the learned Trial

Court is not justified in dismissing the application filed by

the defendants. In support of his submission, the learned

- 10 -

                                            NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                          AND 1 OTHER

counsel for the appellants relied upon the provisions

Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 and submits that, no such

marriage has been certified by the authority and mere

production of document executed before the notary is not

sufficient to prove the marital status. Learned counsel for

the appellants relied upon the findings of the trial Court,

so also the serious objections raised to the application filed

by the defendants.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent justified the reasons assigned by the trial

Court and submits that, dispute started only after demise

of her late husband Imran Khan. It was she and her

husband sent the money both in Indian currency as well as

US currency, that was utilized by the defendant no.1 to

purchase the schedule property. According to the learned

counsel for the respondent, the learned trial Court has

given the well reasoned order and prays to dismiss the

appeal.

- 11 -

                                                NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                              AND 1 OTHER

7. Having carefully examined the records and

heard the learned counsel of both the side, I find that, the

trail Court has meticulously considered the relevant

aspects, particularly the nature of evidence produced at

this interlocutory stage. Plaintiff has produced the

marriage certificate executed in the US, extracts of joint

bank account, exchange of whatsapp messages with her

husband and defendants, photographs and various utility

bills to substantiate not only her marital status with

deceased Imran Khan but, also financial contributions

towards purchase of suit property. Although the appellants

have questioned the legality of marriage certificate under

the Foreign Marriage Act, it is the settled position under

law that, such a contention would be matter requiring

adjudication after full-fledged trial and in support of such

contention, circumstantial evidence suffices to establish a

prima facie case at this stage.

- 12 -

                                               NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                            AND 1 OTHER

8. Importantly, the appellants themselves have in

their affidavits filed along with I.A.No.4 and 6 admitted

that, plaintiff resided in the suit schedule property with

their deceased son and that she was accommodated there

by them. This admission coupled with production of

electricity bills, gas receipts, internet bills and other

material corroborates her presence in the property

undeniably strengthens her claim of possession even if as

alleged by the appellants, plaintiff is presently residing in

US. There is nothing on record to rebut the plaintffs'

assertion that, she frequently returns to Bengaluru and

continues to maintain dominion over the suit property. The

mere assertion of her absence or alleged trespass by

unknown persons does not prima facie negate her

possessory interest, particularly when the appellants

themselves do not reside in the suit property.

9. Furthermore, the claim of suppression of earlier

proceedings in OS No.4696/2023 is without merit. The

record shows that, plaintiff has specifically disclosed

- 13 -

                                            NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                          AND 1 OTHER

existence of the earlier suit in the present plaint and has

explained that, the same was a bare suit for injunction

which was not pressed in light of broader and more

comprehensive reliefs sought in the present suit for

declaration, partition and injunction.

10. The Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 was enacted to

regulate marriage solemnized by Indian citizen outside the

territory of India. It lays down a formal procedure for how

such marriages to be performed and legally recognized.

Primarily, the Act provides that, an Indian citizen intending

to marry in a foreign country must do so in the presence

of a Marriage Officer appointed by the Government of

India for that country. The Act also requires certain steps

as giving notice of intended marriage, verification by the

officer and registration of the marriage under the Act. If all

these formalities are fulfilled, a certificate is issued by the

Marriage Officer which serves as conclusive proof of the

marriage under the Indian Law. However, it is important

to note that, the Act does not say that, every marriage of

- 14 -

                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                             AND 1 OTHER

an Indian citizen solemnized abroad must necessarily be

registered under it. The Act provides a formal legal

framework for marriage abroad but, it does not state that

failure to follow it would render all such marriages void or

without any legal effect. Marriages can still be considered

valid based on the personal law applicable to the parties

and law of the country where the marriage was performed.

For example, if two individuals get married in a foreign

country, according to local laws or religious or customary

manner recognized in that jurisdiction, the marriage may

still be considered valid under Indian Law unless it violates

Indian Public Policy or any mandatory legal condition.

11. In the present case, the appellants have

objected to the marriage certificate produced by the

plaintiff on the ground that, it is not issued under Foreign

Marriage Act, 1969, it is only notarized. He argues the

absence of certification from an office makes the marriage

invalid. However, such an objection by itself is not

sufficient to reject the existence of marriage at inintial

- 15 -

                                               NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                             AND 1 OTHER

stage. The Foreign Marriage Act is meant to provide, a

secure and uniform process in abroad but, it is not

exclusive in its application.

12. If the parties have undergone a marriage in

accordance with the norms or religious practices of the

foreign country and the ceremony is documented and

supported by evidence, such as cohabitation, joint

financial dealings and social recognition, the marriage may

still carry legal significance in India.

13. The intention of the law is not to invalidate

genuine marital relationship merely because the parties

failed to register a marriage under the enactment. The law

recognize the personal and social relations and may not

always align neatly with statutory processes. Therefore,

the provisions of Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 must be

interpreted in a purposive and inclusive manner so as not

to exclude genuine relationship from legal protection

simply due to procedural irregularities. The validity of the

marriage in such cases, becomes a question of fact to be

- 16 -

                                             NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                           AND 1 OTHER

determined at trial based on the conduct of the parties,

the documentary record and the surrounding

circumstances.

14. Thus, even if a marriage is not registered under

the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969, it can still be treated as

valid marriage under Indian law for interim purposes,

particularly when party asserting the marriage supports it

with documents such as photos, proof of residence, joint

account or correspondence.

15. Whether or not plaintiff's marriage fulfills all the

technical conditions of the Foreign Marriage Act is a matter

to be examined at the final stage of the suit and not

during the consideration of temporary injunction.

16. In light of the above, I find that the trial Court

has rightly concluded that, the plaintiff has established a

prima facie case in her favour. The balance of convenience

undoubtedly tilts with the plaintiffs. If she is dispossessed

or if the suit property is alienated during the pendency of

- 17 -

                                                 NC: 2025:KHC:24423



HC-KAR                                               AND 1 OTHER

the proceedings she would suffer irreparable injury and

cannot be adequately compensated by damages. On the

other hand, grant of interim protection does not

irreversibly harm the defendants whose title and

ownership claims can still be adjudicated at the trial. I also

do not find any legal infirmity in the verification of the

plaint. The plaintiff's Special Power of Attorney holder has

signed the plaint, and there is a procedural irregularity

curable under law and do not affect merits of the

application for temporary injunction. The trial Court's

discretion exercised under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC

therefore calls for no interference being sound reasoned

and in conformity with settled legal principles. Resultantly,

the following:

ORDER All the four Misc. First Appeals namely

MFA Nos.332/25, 336/25, 458/25 and 489/25

stand dismissed. The common order dated

16.10.2024 passed by the X Addl. City Civil and