Karnataka High Court
Illyas Ahmed S/O Khaja Hussain vs Razia Sulthana W/O Illyas Ahmed Anr on 23 February, 2012
Author: H.G.Ramesh
Bench: H.G.Ramesh
RPFC No.509/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
RPFC No.509/2012
BETWEEN:
ILLYAS AHMED
S/O KHAJA HUSSAIN
AGE: 34 YEARS
0CC: COMPUTER BUSINESS
R/O ARC COMPUTERS, OPP: SBH
STATION ROAD, RAICHUR-584 101
PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK S. KINAGI. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1) RAZIA SULTELANA
W/O ILLYAS AHMED
AGE: 28 YEARS. 0CC: NIL
R/O, C/O R.S.PATEL, H.NO.1-12-J32/17A
PARVATHI COLONY. BEHIND DADY COLONY
RAICHUR-584 101
2) MADIHA TARNUM
D/O ILLYAS AHMED
AGE ABOUT 5 YEARS. 0CC: NIL
R/O. C/O R.S. PATE. H.NO.1-12-432/17A
PARVATHI COLONY. BEHIND DADY COLONY
RAICHUR 584 101
(REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER
SMT. RAZIA SULTHANA W/O ILLYAS AHMED)
RESPONDENTS
RPI'C o5O9/2O 12
THIS RPFC IS FILET) U/S. 19(4) OF FAMILY
COURTS
ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26,12.20
11 PASSED IN
CRL. MISC. NO.58/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING
OFFICER. FAST TAK COURT. AND I/C FAMILY
COURT JUDGE
AT RAICIIUR. PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITIO
N FILED U/S.
127 OF CR.P.C.
THIS RPFC COMING ON ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE
COURT MADE TI IF FOLLOWING:
ORDER
H.G.RAMESH, J.(Oral):
This revision petition by the husband is directed against the order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Family Court at Raichur in Cr1. Misc. No.58/2010. By the impugned order, the Family Court has enhanced the monthly maintenanc e from 1,500 to 5,OO0/- to respondent No.1-wife and from U,000/- to 2,OOO/- to respondent No.2-daug hter.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned ord er.
RPFC No.509/2012 -3-3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the income of the petitioner-husband. the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive. He submitted that there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the petitioner is having sufficient income so as to pay the maintenance now awarded.
4. The Family Court has considered the aspect of income of the petitioner-husband at par as 15 and 16 of the impugned order, which read as follows:
"15. Now, if we come to the evidence of RW-2 his assertion is further falsfy ed.
Though he pleaded in his vertfying cou nter filed by him that he never did any business in computers and that he was only a name lender to his friend An war Hussai but during his cross-examination , he categorically admitted that earlier to Ex.R-1 coming into existence comput er shop was belonging to him and he was doing computer sales and service. He has RPFC No.509/2012 -4- Iuirther admitted that he was giving service to Kamatalca Power Coiporation Ltd.. and to Bellary Thermal Power Station. Kuduthini. lie has further admitted that he had participated in tender process and thereby getting contract from KPCL and Bellary Thermal power station. Therefore, Ex.P4 to P6, the one got under RTI Act are proved through the admissions qf this RW
2. TherefOre. it stands established that this respondent has misled this court while deciding Cr1 .Mis.25/08 by deposing falsehood that he was only an agricultural cooli. though he had definite source qf income by doing computer business.
"16. In his further cross examination RW-2 (husband,) has admitted that Illyas Ahmed. proprietor Arc Information and Technology means himsef He has flirther admitted that he was not doing agricultural cooli work during the period when he was doing computer business. Theref Ore, it is now clearly established from Ex.P4 to P6 that he had sLjficient means and he has suppressed this fact RPFQ No,5O9/2O2 before this court, as such the order passed by this court in Crl,Mis.25/2008 needs to be varied at the instance of petitioners for having placed it on record the material documents. Now the question is, what should be the quantum of enhancement to be marLle to the one already awarded. In Cr1. Misc. 25/2008 this court vide order dated 12.3.2008 in all awarded Rs.2,500/- as maintenance. Admittedly that order has not been challenged by either of the parties and hence the said order becomes absolute. The present petition has been filed on 9.4.2010. What was the position of this respondent as on 9.4.2010 is well demonstrated from the positive evidence placed on record in the jbrrn of Exs.P4 to P-6. The new contrac t that was given by KPC Ltd., is from 1 SI September 2008 to 31st August 2010 and therefore this contract is to be got renewed from time to time. There is no documentary p roof to prove that his contract with Thermal Power coiporation either has come to an end or that it has been terminated. Therefore, the contention of the respondent RPPC N.5O9/2O 12 -6- that there is no substantial change in his status cannot be accepted. since it was falsely demonstrated in the previous proceedings. Hence. irrespective of respondent's educational q ual if Icai ion it is demonstrated well by the respondent himseif that he is capable of running an institution in the name of ARC computers information and Technology and make good earning out of it by securing the annual maintenance order from the reputed organizations itseif is stjjicient to hold that the respondent has got suJficient means to provide enhanced maintenance to the petitioners to live up to his standard in the society during the current day standard of living. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced from the existing maintenance qf Rs. 1.500/- to Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.1 and from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs.2.000/- to petitioner No.2.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is doing business in Computers in the name of M/s. ARC Computers and that he has substantial income from RPFC No.5O9/2O2 the said business, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court cannot at all he said io be exce ssive to warrant interference under the revisional juris diction of this Court under Section 19(4) of the Fam ily Courts Act, 1984. The Revision Petition is devoid of meril and ii is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
safr LG