Karnataka High Court
Rri. Fayyaz Ahmed S/O Janpatel Bagali vs Smt. Rehana Begum on 6 August, 2018
Author: L Narayana Swamy
Bench: L.Narayana Swamy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST-2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY
RPFC NO. 200037/2018
BETWEEN:
Sri. Fayyaz Ahmed S/o Janpatel bagali,
Age: 47 years, Occ: Govt. School Teacher,
R/o Urdu Govt. primary School, Yenkanchi,
Tq: Sindagi, dist: Vijayapura-586101.
... Petitioner
(By Sri. Ajay Kumar Ashok Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
Smt. Rehana Begum W/o Fayyaz Ahmed Bagali,
Age: 41 years, Occ: Household work,
R/o Near Chandapur Masjid, Vijayapura,
Dist: Vijayapura-586101.
... Respondent
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) of Family
Court Act, praying to allowed by setting aside order
dated 17.04.2018 passed in Crl. Misc.No.677/2016 by
the learned Prl. Judge, Family Court Vijayapura and
consequently dismissed the petition with cost
throughout, in the interest of justice and equity.
This RPFC coming on for admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
2
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is the husband challenging the order passed by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Vijayapura in Criminal Miscellaneous No.677 of 2016, in which, order has been passed and under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. directing the respondent-husband to pay Rs.6,000/- per month to the wife.
2. Learned counsel for the husband submits that the wife is also well qualified, she has studied M.A., B.Ed., and working in Solapur in a private school. Hence ordering to pay Rs.6,000/- per month is on higher inside and it is not scientifically and practically evaluated.
3. The submission has been examined from the discussion made that Family Court, Vijayapura it is found that the husband though taken a ground of qualification of wife and also the contention that she is working in private school, but no document has been 3 produced and nothing has been proved. Merely possessing qualification itself is not a ground and further what has been ordered is only to pay maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month which is no way on the higher in side. Thirdly, the husband is a Government Teacher and his admission is that his gross salary is Rs.40,915/- per month. In that view of the matter, direction is issued to him to pay Rs.6,000/- is no way on the higher inside. Under these circumstances, appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly dismissed. However liberty is reserved to the petitioner- husband to file such application in case if he is capable of procuring any documents to the effect that wife is also earning and getting a good sum. With this observation, petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SMP