Karnataka High Court
Riyaz Ahammad S/O Giddusab Bagawan vs Smt. Malanabi Alias Nazneen W/O Riyaz ... on 19 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5064
RPFC No. 100190 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100190 OF 2024 (-)
BETWEEN:
RIYAZ AHAMMAD S/O. GIDDUSAB BAGAWAN,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: ASST. TEACHER,
R/O. GAJENDRAGAD, TQ: RON, DT: GADAG,
NOW R/O. KALAKAPUR, TQ: GAJENDRAGAD,
DT: GADAG, P.C. NO: 585101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.G. MOGALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. MALANABI @ NAZNEEN
W/O. RIYAZ AHAMMAD BAGAWAN,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NEAR OLD VEGETABLE MARKET,
NALABAND GALLI, BAGALKOT,
TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT P.C. NO: 587 101.
2. NIHAL AHAMMAD S/O. RIYAZ AHAMMAD BAGAWAN,
AGE: 6 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. NEAR OLD VEGETABLE MARKET,
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK
NALABAND GALLI, BAGALKOT,
KASHIMSA TQ: AND DIST: BAGALKOT P.C. NO: 587 101.
MALAGALADINNI
Location: HIGH SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS
COURT OF MOTHER GUARDIAN-RESPONDENT NO. 1
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.03.22
...RESPONDENTS
15:55:13 +0530
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
CRI.MISC.NO.14/2020 DATED 01.10.2024 BY PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT AT BAGALKOT AND DISMISS THE
CRL.MISC.NO.14/2020 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5064
RPFC No. 100190 of 2024
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the respondent-husband
challenging the order dated 01.10.2024 in
Crl.Misc.No.14/2020 passed by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bagalkot (for short the "the Family Court") granting
maintenance to the petitioner therein.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the
marriage of petitioner No.1-wife with respondent-husband
was solemnized on 03.02.2017 and in their wedlock,
petitioner No.2 was born. It is further averred in the
petition that the respondent-husband and his parents were
assaulting the petitioner No.1-wife without any cause and
also not providing the basic necessities to the petitioners
and as such, the petitioner No.1-wife left the matrimonial
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5064
home and started residing separately from the
respondent-husband. It is also stated that the respondent-
husband is working in Sanganatti Government High School
of Mudhol Taluk and also having immovable properties.
Hence, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.14/2020
seeking maintenance.
3.1. After service of notice, the respondent-husband
entered appearance before the Family Court and filed
detailed objections denying the allegations made against
him by the petitioners. It is the specific case of the
respondent-husband that the petitioner was not respecting
the respondent-husband and his family members and the
petitioner-wife was adamant and therefore, sought for
dismissal of the petition.
3.2. The Family Court after considering the material
on record, by its order dated 01.10.2024 allowed the
petition in part by directing the respondent-husband to
pay ₹15,000/- per month to petitioner No.1-wife and
₹10,000/- per month to petitioner No.2-child. Feeling
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5064
aggrieved by the same, respondent-husband has preferred
this petition.
4. I have heard Sri. P. G. Mogali, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner herein/respondent-husband. It
is contended by the learned counsel that the respondent-
husband has deposed before the Family Court that he is
ready to take back the petitioner No.1-wife and petitioner
No.2-child, but petitioner No.1-wife has refused to join the
matrimonial home despite having judgment and decree in
O.S.No.39/2020. Accordingly, sought for interference of
this Court.
5. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein, it is
not in dispute that the marriage of the respondent-
husband with the petitioner-wife was solemnized on
03.02.2017 and in their wedlock a child was born. It is
also not in dispute that the parties are residing separately.
Taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-
husband is working at a Government school and as per the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5064
finding recorded by the Family Court at paragraph 23 and
24, the salary of the respondent-husband for the month of
March-2024 is ₹67,174/- and since it is not in dispute as
per Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 that the respondent-husband is
having agricultural income also and in that view of the
matter, taking into consideration the status of the parties,
I am of the view that no interference is called for in this
petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed being
devoid of merits.
6. In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
YAN
CT-MCK
