Karnataka High Court
Smt.Hoor Banu And Ors vs Mohammed Moula Sab on 25 September, 2019
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
RPFC NO.200110/2017
C/W
RPFC NO.200101/2017
RPFC NO.200110/2017
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Hoor Banu W/o Mohammed
Moula Sab, Aged about: 33 years,
Occ: Houshold,
2. Umera Anzum D/o Mohammed
Moula Sab, Aged about: 14 years,
Occ: Student,
3. Mohammed Baba Fakruddin
S/o Mohammed Moula Sab,
Aged about: 11 years, Occ: Student,
4. Mohammed Mohijuddin
S/o Mohammed Moula Sab,
Aged 7 years, Occ: Nil-
Mentally disabled.
(Petitioners Nos.2 to 4 are the minors U/g
of their natural mother Smt. Hoor Banu
the Petitioner No.1.)
2
All are R/o H.No.12-04-126,
Mailara Nagar, Raichur
Now R/o H.No.12-06-1238/107,
Vidya Colony, Pothgal road,
Raichur.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
AND:
Mohammed Moula Sab
S/o Maheboob Sab,
Aged about: 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o House No.12-04-126,
Mailara Nagar, Raichur-584101.
... Respondent
(By Smt. Anita M. Reddy, Advocate)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family
Courts Act, 1984, praying to modify the order dated
19/07/2017 passed in Criminal Misc. C. No. 204/2014 on
the file of the Hon'ble Principal Judge, Family Court at
Raichur, and consequently grant the enhanced maintenance
amount in favour of the revision petitioners herein as
claimed by them in the amended claim petition filed before
the Family Court at Raichur, and award the litigation
expenses and other amounts, as may be necessary in the
circumstance of the case.
3
RPFC NO.200101/2017
BETWEEN:
Mohd. Moula Sab S/o Maheboob Sab,
Aged about: 43 years, Occ: Business,
R/o H.No.12-04-126,
Mailara Nagar, Raichur-584102.
... Petitioner
(By Smt. Anita M. Reddy and
Venkatreddy Patil, Advocates)
AND:
1. Hoor Banu W/o Mohd. Moula Sab,
Age: about: 33 years, Occ: Household,
2. Umera Anzum D/o Mohd. Moula Sab,
Age: about: 14 years, Occ: Student,
3. Mohd. Baba Fakhruddin
S/o Mohd. Moula Sab,
Age: about 11 years, Occ: Student,
4. Mohd Mohijuddin S/o Mohd. Moula Sab,
Age about: 7 years, Occ: Nil,
Respondents No.2 to 4 are minors,
U/g of their natural mother Smt. Hoor Banu
i.e., respondent No.1 .
All are R/o H.No.12-04-126,
Mailara Nagar, Raichur,
Now R/o H.No.12-06-1238/107,
Vidya Colony, Pothgal Road,
Raichur-584103.
... Respondents
(By Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Advocate)
4
This RPFC is filed under Section 19 (4) of the Family
Court Act, praying to allow the revision petition and set-
aside the order dated 19/07/2017 passed by the Prl. Judge,
Family Court at Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.204/2014, and
dismiss the Crl.Misc.No.204/2014.
These petitions coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
These are the two petitions coming up filed by the wife and children in RPFC No.200110/2017 and the husband in RPFC No.200101/2017. Both the petitions are directed against the order passed by the learned Prl. Judge, Family Court, Raichur in Crl.Misc.No.204/2014 dated 19.07.2017.
2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping the parties hereinafter are referred with their relation.
3. Admitted facts are that; one Hoor Banu aged about 30 years is the wife of Mohd. Moula Sab. 5 Marriage took place at Raichur on 15.06.2003 as per the custom and formalities applicable to Mohammadan. It is stated that cash of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry and jewelry worth Rs.2,00,000/- were given to the bridegroom. It is stated that from 2009, husband started neglecting the wife and children and demanded for money of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that husband physically beaten the wife and she and her children are abandoned. Even the matter was referred to non- Governmental organization, but of no avail. The husband is stated to be earning more than Rs.50,000/- earlier and Rs.2,00,000/- at present which is denied by the husband who contend his monthly income is Rs.20,000/- and he is also not having proper health. He further claims that the wife has abandoned him without just and sufficient reasons. Though the contention of wife earning the amount is raised, no independent documents are produced. The order of the learned Judge, Family Court reflects that an amount of 6 Rs.5,000/- was granted to wife and Rs.3,000/- each to respondents No.2 to 4. It is stated that he has a gun licence and he is doing a job of contractor.
4. Learned counsel for the husband is absent and there is no representation.
5. Considering the claim of the husband and children regarding the income and status of the husband, I find that learned Judge, Family Court rightly came to the conclusion to allow the petition for maintenance. But erred in quantum of maintenance. In the circumstances of the case, I find an amount of Rs.7,500/- to the wife and Rs.3,000/- each to the children appears to be just and proper. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the wife and children in RPFC No.200110/2017 is allowed in part. Petitioner No.1 Smt. Hoor Banu is entitled to get maintenance of 7 Rs.7,500/- per month from the respondent-Mohd. Moula Sab from the date of petition till her life time and the children petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to get maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each from the respondent- Mohd. Moula Sab from the date of petition till petitioner No.2 gets married and petitioner No.3 attain majority, in addition to the education expenses of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and education and medical expenses of petitioner No.4.
Petition filed by the petitioner Mohd.Moula Sab in RPFC No.200101/2017 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nsp