Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Ghouse S/O Mohammed Fakruddin ... vs Jabina Begaum W/O Mohammed Ghouse on 19 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830
CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100327 OF 2017
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED GHOUSE
S/O. MOHAMMED FAKRUDDIN SAHEB,
AGED 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER IN
GESCOM GRADE-1 O AND M DIVISION,
R/O: BEHIND FISH MARKET, S.R. NAGAR,
TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. JABINA BEGAUM W/O. MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
2. ANIS FATHIMA D/O. MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3. ALEEM S/O. MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI 4. BIBI HAZIRA D/O. MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/O: NEAR KRISHAN TOURIST
HOME DOOR NO.577, M.S. RAGHU'S PLOT,
17 WARD S.R. NAGAR, TQ: HOSAPETE,
DIST: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ANWAR BASHA B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 30.05.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, HOSAPETE IN CRL.M.C.NO.208 OF 2012 AND ORDER DATED
04.11.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830
CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017
HC-KAR
JUDGE AT BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) IN CRL.APPEAL
NO.5051 OF 2016 BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL REVISION
PETITION WITH COST THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST AND
EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND) Heard Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anwar Basha B., learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The present revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner-husband, challenging the order passed in Crl.M.C.No.208/2012 dated 30.05.2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet (for short, 'the trial Court'), which came to be confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.5051/2016 dated 04.11.2017 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete) (for short, 'the appellate Court').
3. The brief facts, as emerging from the impugned order, are that the respondent No.1 herein is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830 CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017 HC-KAR their children. The marriage between respondent No.1 and the petitioner was solemnized on 11.11.1990. It is stated that the educational expenses of respondent Nos.2 to 4 were borne by respondent No.1. The petitioner is employed as a driver with the Karnataka Electricity Board (KEB) at Munirabad Dam. It is alleged that the petitioner is addicted to alcohol, involved in gambling, and is also a womanizer. It is further alleged that despite earning a substantial monthly salary of Rs.35,000/-, the petitioner failed to maintain the respondents.
4. Upon service of notice, the petitioner appeared through his counsel and filed his objections, wherein he denied the allegations made in the petition. However, he admitted the marital relationship with respondent No.1. He contended that he has been maintaining the family and that the educational expenses of the children were borne by him. It is stated that, at the insistence of respondent No.1, he purchased a house at Munirabad for a sum of Rs.4,30,000/-, by availing a loan from HDFC Bank. The said building comprises four housing units. The petitioner is stated to have executed a registered gift deed in respect of the said property in favour of respondent No.1 on -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830 CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017 HC-KAR 13.07.2011. As on date, the value of the said property is stated to be Rs.50,00,000/-, and each unit has been let out by respondent No.1 for a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/-. It is further stated that, apart from the said house, the petitioner has also purchased a plot in the name of respondent No.1 at Sindhanur, worth Rs.25,00,000/-.
5. Respondent No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and produced 26 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P26. The petitioner examined himself as RW.1 and produced 22 documents, which were marked as Exhibits R1 to R22.
6. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on record and the investments made by the petitioner in the name of respondent No.1, directed payment of monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- each to respondent Nos.1, 2, and 4. It was observed that respondent No.3 had attained majority as on the date of the order, and therefore, no maintenance was awarded in favour of respondent No.3.
7. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.5051/2016, wherein the appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court dated 30.05.2016.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830 CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017 HC-KAR
8. Sri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-husband, submits that the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation and presently has no independent source of income. It is submitted that respondent No.1 is receiving rental income from the property, as well as from the plot purchased by the petitioner in her name. It is further submitted that respondent Nos.2 to 4 were educated by the petitioner and are presently employed, earning a substantial income.
9. Learned counsel contends that the income of respondent No.1 is considerably higher than that of the petitioner. It is also submitted that, apart from purchasing the house and executing a gift deed in favour of respondent No.1, the petitioner has fully discharged the loan obtained for the said purchase. In view of the changed circumstances, it is submitted that the petitioner is not financially capable of paying the maintenance as ordered, and hence, seeks to set aside the same.
10. Per contra, Sri Anwar Basha B., learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that the educational -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830 CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017 HC-KAR expenses of respondent Nos.2 to 4 were borne by respondent No.1, who had raised hand loans for the said purpose. It is submitted that though respondent Nos.2 and 4 have completed their education, they are not presently earning any income and remain unmarried. Respondent No.1 is, therefore, required to meet their prospective marriage expenses.
11. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and upon perusal of the record and the grounds urged in the petition, it is not in dispute that the petitioner and respondent No.1 are legally wedded spouses. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner failed to maintain the family, compelling respondent No.1 to raise hand loans to meet the educational expenses of respondent Nos.2 to 4. However, although respondent No.1 has asserted that such loans were raised, there is no material evidence on record to substantiate the same. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had purchased a property in the name of respondent No.1, comprising four housing units, which are yielding rental income, an aspect that is not disputed. The -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830 CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017 HC-KAR execution of a registered gift deed transferring the said property in favour of respondent No.1 is established through Exhibit R1. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has retired from service and presently has no independent source of income. The trial Court and the appellate Court, considering the circumstances prevailing at the time, were justified in directing the payment of maintenance to respondent Nos.1, 2, and 4. However, in light of the subsequent change in circumstances namely, that respondent Nos.2 and 4 have completed their graduation and are now self-reliant they can no longer be considered dependents entitled to maintenance from the petitioner. During the course of hearing, this Court expressed a prima facie view that the maintenance awarded to respondent No.1-wife ought to be continued.
12. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner- husband submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay a lump sum amount towards maintenance in lieu of monthly payments. The learned counsel for the respondents readily accepted the proposal. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830 CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017 HC-KAR the view that the orders passed by both the Courts below warrant modification.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-wife submits that the petitioner-husband be directed to bear or contribute towards the marriage expenses of respondent Nos.2 and 4.
14. However, this Court is not inclined to consider that aspect in the present petition as it is different and independent cause of action.
15. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER i. Criminal revision petition is allowed in part.
ii. The direction to pay the monthly maintenance of Rs.3,000/- to respondent No.1-wife during her lifetime is modified.
iii. The monthly maintenance ordered in favour of respondent Nos.2 and 4 is set aside.
iv. The petitioner-husband is directed to pay the lump sum maintenance of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of respondent No.1-wife.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7830 CRL.RP No. 100327 of 2017 HC-KAR v. The petitioner-husband is granted six weeks time from the date of receipt of this order to pay the lump sum maintenance as ordered above.
vi. Till the payment of lump sum maintenance, the petitioner shall continue to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. to respondent No.1-wife as ordered by the trial Court.
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3