Mohammad Rafiq Mohammed Irfan Belgaumi vs Shabana Mohammed Rafiq Belgaumi on 8 October, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Mohammad Rafiq Mohammed Irfan Belgaumi vs Shabana Mohammed Rafiq Belgaumi on 8 October, 2009

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 3"' DAY 01: OCTOBER, 2b09~AEEC%  "

BEFORE

HON' BLE MR. }USTiCE AI\IAN})V4'i3}I"R.£\REﬁQ:yf = " I

RP(FC) N0. 329oF«2oo9E    
BETWEEN: I I

Mohammad Raﬁq Mohammad Irfah Be! __ 

Age:29 years     1  

Occ: Business       

R/O H.NO.232"  " ' V   ~

Saibaba Galli, 7:- ;'_ _

J yotinag:vir,Man§{.§§F_v Yaéfdg .4."

Karngara"I..iK--.H.. I   '

Beigaum Tq and Dtf    PETITIONER

(By Sri.: Ahjamed A11 gdgahmsga, Advocate)

 1. ESi1ab-ana  Raﬁq Beigaumi

V Age*:__2"7 years 
_ Occ: I~IouSeho'fd Work

    R./o H.,No;2754.

 V' :K,asaoiEgalli,V"
 _B§:igaufr1 Tq and DI.  RESPONDENT

E(I3"ySrEi_:..IV{aIl_ikarjur1 B Iiiremath, Advocate ) Z This RPFC filed under section 19(4) of Family Court..__Act, against the order dated: 28/ ll/2008 in Crl. Misc.Petivtioni;No. 297/2006 passed by the Judge Family Court, Belgaum, fo.r"'p'art'iy, allowing the petition ﬁled under section 125 of _'t.r.;?3f__ maintenance.

This petition coming on for admissiori1itihis'day, the.cot1tt_n1ade"'. the following: ' There is a delay of 13 CVL 104846/2009 is ﬁled seeking Notice of the application having': No objections have been filed. Hence the delay is condoned.

_ 2. Hoxyever on ilrnerits itis seen that the present petition is ﬁled chall_er1gVir1eg the_Vorderl'of the family court directing the appellant to pay :7W,.,,rr1'aintenancel at tlie';_ of Rs.1,500/- per month to the respondent, wife the petitioner. The ground raised is that though the cl_aim for 'Rs.3,000/-- as maintenance, the court having H 'igraintied__iRs.1,500/-- is exorbitant. Having regard to the station of life 6 b.) of the petitioner and his income, apart from the large number of dependants that he has to support, he is not in a position to vbearithe burden of payment of Rs.I,500/-- per month. It is in thistvieiini ~ coutd contend that the court below has failed to H appreciiate4_'_:the._V it it circumstances in which petitioner is placedin idireicting _t};e,Vpayrinent'V. of maintenance as above.

3. Having regard to the above facts'arioicirciimstances, the family court having awarded;'1niai.ntenance§of;Rs;~]:;500/+_._cannot be said to be exorbitant. The petitiioner. S-t~ated[ to be a mechanic by occupation hasrthe capaicity this liabiiity, even if there are other dependants vvho reqnire'to"bei..provided for. Hence. _there no merit in the present petition and the same V' 'stands rejected. _ Sd/-3 JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court