Bangalore District Court
Mohammed Muzammil vs Salma Nizini on 12 March, 2026
1
Crl.A.No.802/2023
KABC010162102023
IN THE COURT OF LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU (CCH-56)
DATED: THE 12th DAY OF MARCH 2026
PRESENT
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU, M.A., LL.M.
LV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
CRL.A.NO.802 / 2023
APPELLANT/S MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL
S/O LATE MOHAMMED YOUSUFF
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.G, 3RD BLOCK,
18TH CROSS, OPP: RASHIDIYA
MOSQUE, BYRAPPA LAYOUT,
GOVINDAPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 045.
(BY SRI.PRADEEP H.S., ADV.)
Versus
RESPONDENT MRS. SALMA NIZINI
W/O MOHAMMED MUZAMMIL
D/O LATE MIR HAFEEZ HUSSAN
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT No.4, 1ST CROSS,
RUYDRA LAYOUT, S.B.M. COLONY,
2
Crl.A.No.802/2023
MATHIKERE, BENGLURU - 560 054.
(BY SRI.S.K.N., ADV.)
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the respondent under Section 29 of Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'PWDV Act') challenging the order dated 29.05.2023 passed on IA No.I in Crl.Misc.No.27/2022 by the learned JMFC (Traffic Court-II), Bengaluru, awarding interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- p.m. payable to the petitioner from the date of application till final disposal of the case.
2. The parties herein are referred to their rank before trial court as petitioner and respondent.
3. The grounds urged in the appeal, is briefly stated as follows.
The petitioner has filed petition against the respondent u/S/12, 18, 19,20, 22 of PWDV Act, seeking for the relief and to direct the 1st respondent to pay Rs.1 lakh towards house advance, Rs.25,000/- per month towards maintenance and Rs.1 lakh as monetary relief which includes medical expenses and also for causing physical and mental injury, 3 Crl.A.No.802/2023 Rs.3 lakhs as compensation towards damages for causing physical and mental, economical sentimental, harassment, suffering and agony to the petitioner and Rs.10 lakhs towards marriage expenses incurred by the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner also prayed to direct the respondents to return back all the gold jewellery, cost towards house hold articles etc. to the petitioner which are illegally detained by the respondent and also prayed to direct the jurisdictional police to assist and give protection to the petitioner. The petitioner has moved application u/S.23(2) of PWDV Act praying to grant interim maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.25,000/- p.m. towards maintenance.
4. The learned Magistrate by allowing IA No.I filed u/S/23(3) of PWDV Act, directed the respondent No.1 (present appellant) to pay Rs.8,000/- p.m. to the petitioner as interim maintenance towards food, clothing, medical expenses etc. from the date of application till final disposal of the case. Further it is also made clear that if the 4 Crl.A.No.802/2023 respondent No.1 is paying any maintenance to the petitioner in any other proceedings same may be adjusted / set off towards maintenance amount ordered in this case.
5. It is the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 07.10.2018 in accordance with Muslim law. After the marriage the respondents started to harassing the petitioner by demanding to bring money from her parental house. Even after 3 years of their marriage she did not conceive. Hence, the respondent No.1 behaved with her rude manner and forced to undergo medial check up for which the petitioner and the respondent No.1 underwent medical check up, then the doctor gave clean chit to the petitioner, but found deficiency in the 1st respondent health. Despite of same the respondent continuously harassing her. He totally deserted and neglected her. The respondent subjected her cruelty, both mental and physically. The petitioner further being unable to maintain herself. She is the house wife. The respondent 5 Crl.A.No.802/2023 No.1 is the AC fitter, who used to take contract in Apartments and luxury buildings for furnishing AC conditioner and earning Rs.75,000/- p.m. Apart from that he also owns a house in Govindapura, Bengaluru comprising of 3 BHK and four shops in the ground floor, 3 houses in the first floor and one BHK house in the second floor. Altogether getting rent more than Rs.,60,000/- p.m. Hence, she prayed to grant her interim maintenance.
6. The respondents in their objection would contend that the respondents never neglected and subjected cruelty to the petitioner. They have never demanded any dowry. The entire marriage expenses were borne by the respondents. The petitioner and her family members have no such financial capacity to perform the marriage. The respondents neither committed domestic violence nor harassed the petitioner. The legal notice dated 01.11.2021 issued. Hence, the petitioner has filed this false petition by making false allegations.
7. The learned Magistrate considering the rival 6 Crl.A.No.802/2023 contentions of the parties passed impugned order and granted interim maintenance of Rs.8,000/- p.m. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the appellant / respondent filed this appeal on the following among other grounds.
The impugned order is error, apparent on the face of the record and same is contrary to the law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside... The impugned order is contrary to the record lies before the trial court and same is unsustainable under the law. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The impugned order passed by the trial court without considering the conduct of the respondent and without conducting any enquiry with regard to the domestic violence caused to the respondent. Further, the respondent herself admitted that after issuing the notice from the appellant she has lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional police station. Since then the respondent was residing in her parental home. Therefore, the question of causing domestic violence does not arise at all. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside..The respondent 7 Crl.A.No.802/2023 while filing the petition she has suppressed the material fact the pendency of the petition in C.Mis.No.25/2022 before the Hon'ble Family Court. The said petition was filed on 01.06.2022 wherein the Hon'ble Family Court has refused to grant the interim maintenance. Therefore, the respondent has approached this Hon'ble Court on 18.02.2022 without disclosing the pendency of the said petition under section 125 of the Cr.P.C before the Hon'ble Family Court. Hence, the respondent is guilty of fraud to the court by suppressing the material facts and she is also not entitled for any relief. But, unfortunately the trial court without considering all these aspect has passed the impugned order. The trial court has lost the sight while passing the impugned order with regard to the conduct of the respondent and fraud played by the respondent to the Hon'ble Court by suppressing the material facts with regard to the pendency of the petition under section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any equitable relief and not entitle for any relief from the Hon'ble Court as she has played fraud to the court. The litigant shall approach the 8 Crl.A.No.802/2023 court with clean hands then only they are entitled for relief from the Hon'ble Court. This is the well settled position of law as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The trial court has utterly failed to application of mind with regard to the basic ingredient to attract the domestic violence under section 12 of the act. The trail court has granted the quantum of interim maintenance by accepting the version of the respondent as it is and decided the quantum on the basis of the assumption and presumption of the Hon'ble Court without any justification assigning valid reason and relying on any documentary proof. This method adopted by the trial court itself is contrary to the very same judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajneesh -Vs- Sneha & Another 2021 (2) SCC 324 which is referred by the trial court itself. The trial court without relying on the documentary proof and admission of the parties passed the order on the basis of the guess work which is contrary to the well settled position of law and the method adopted by the trial court is very strange and same is not recognized under the law.. The 9 Crl.A.No.802/2023 trial court wrongly considered and misunderstand the affidavit in the monthly expenses column the appellant has mentioned a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards monthly expenses and he is earning only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as he has not having educational qualification and he is working as a labour. Hence, he has only earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. But, he is having an expense nearly about of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month as travel expenses, medical expenses of his mother and other expenses towards food, cloth and totally what he has earning is not sufficient to meet his personal expenses. But, the trial court misunderstood the same and without any parameter based on the documentary proof awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. The trial court without application of mind passed the interim maintenance of a sum a of Rs.8,000/- per month without considering the employment status of the appellant and earning capacity of the appellant. The respondent herself admitted that she is B.A.Graduate and M.A discontinued. Therefore, she is having much more education qualification than the appellant. This vital aspect has lost 10 Crl.A.No.802/2023 the sight of the Trial Court. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The trial court directed to pay the maintenance of sum of Rs. 8000/- to the Respondent without considering the earlier order dated 22.02.2022 passed by same court at the first instance.. The trial court has no right or authority to pass an order on the basis of guess work. The trial court has unnecessarily has passed the impugned order which is over burden and unbearable on the respondent. On the other hand, the appellant is residing in her parental home, there is no issues to the respondent out of the said wedlock with the appellant. Further, the respondent has a B.A.Graduate she is also earning in private entity. But these appellant is unable to fetch the details of the employment of the respondent. The respondent willfully deserted the appellant and taken shelter in her parental home and during residing with the appellant and his mother the respondent herself caused physical assault to the appellant's mother, in this regard the mother of the appellant has lodged the complaint and same was numbered as NCR No.122/2021. This vital aspect has 11 Crl.A.No.802/2023 also lost the trial court while passing the impugned order. The said conduct of the respondent towards the mother of the appellant the appellant has lodged the petition before the Masjid Committee to give a consent as by way of 'Khulanama' as dissolving the said marriage. Therefore, this petition was filed by the respondent to harass the appellant. The trial court without any documentary proof without any material documents passed the impugned order by wrongly using the discretionary power of the Hon'ble Court. The impugned order itself is contrary to the well settled position of law and the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The respondent has not made out any grounds before the Hon'ble Court with regard to the her basic needs in respect of expenses which is worth of a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the Hon'ble Trail Court has wrongly passed the impugned order without considering basis requirement of the respondent. The trail court failed to appreciate that the conduct of the Respondent as she has not disclosed the pendency of the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C in Crl.Misc. No. 25/2022 pending before 6th 12 Crl.A.No.802/2023 Addl. Family Judge, at Bengaluru in her asset and liability affidavit. The Respondent intentionally suppressed the pendency of the litigation before the Hon'ble trail court which amounts to guilty of offence under Section 209 of IPC and she is played fraud to the Court. Hence she is not entitled to any relief
8. The respondent entered appearance by engaging her counsel.
9. Heard arguments on the side of the learned counsel for the appellant / respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant also filed written arguments and produced copy of evidence in Crl.Misc.No.27/2022. Despite giving sufficient opportunity to the respondent, arguments not addressed. This court also given an opportunity to file written arguments, but the respondent not filed written arguments.
10. The following points would arise for my consideration:-
Point No.1: Whether there is sufficient grounds made out by the appellant to allow appeal and to set aside impugned order of interim maintenance dated 29.05.2023 passed by 13 Crl.A.No.802/2023 learned JMFC (MMTC- V) in criminal Misc No. 27/2022?
Point No.2: What order?
11. My findings to the above points are as below:-
Point No.1 Partly In the AFFIRMATIVE.
Point No.2: As per the final order, for the
following
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1: Prior to proceeding further , it is
pertinent to note some of the undisputed facts in this case.
The petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 1 / appellant. Their marriage solemnized on 7.10.2018. They have led marital relationship from 7.10.2018 to 5.03.2021. Thereafter, difference arose between them. As on the date of filing the petition U/s 12 of PWDV Act, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 not residing together. Out of their marriage wedlock of petitioner and respondent No. 1, there are no issues.
13. The petitioner in her petition made allegation that the respondents have harassed her mentally and 14 Crl.A.No.802/2023 physically and subjected her cruelty and caused domestic violence. She made allegation against the respondent no. 1 is that as she did not conceive, he in a rude manner insisted her to undergo medical checkup. Hence when she underwent the medical checkup, the doctor gave a clean chit to her regarding her health condition. However found deficiency in Respondent No. 1's health. That on 25.09.2021, the respondents quarreled with the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to 4 assaulted her and driven out her from the house. Hence she forced to reside with her widow mother. Even though she and her relatives tried to negotiate through mediators, DCP, Vanitha Sahayavani Kendra, Govindapura and Yeshwantpura Police Station Police, it all went in vain. The respondents threatened her that they will not allow her to matrimonial home. Based on her FIS, Police have registered case in Crime No. 143/2021 U/s 498A, 323, 504 of IPC against the respondent No. 1 to 4 which is pending before VI ACJM Bangalore. The respondent No. 1 along with his 2 friends have written a threatening letter dated 20.12.2021 to her and dropped in the letter box fixed 15 Crl.A.No.802/2023 to the gate of the house of her mother. The respondent no. 1 totally refused and neglected her to provide any maintenance. The petitioner would contend that the respondent No. 1 who is working as a Air Conditioner Fitter and used to take contracts in the apartments and luxurious buildings for furnishing air conditioner earning Sum of Rs 75,000 per month. Apart from this, he is getting rent more than Rs 60,000 per month as he owns 3 Bhk house, 4 shops in Ground floor, 3 houses in First floor and 1 Bhk House in 2nd floor situated at Govindapura Bangalore. Petitioner who living along with her mother is not having any income of her own. Hence the petitioner who filed the petition U/ s12 of PWDV Act, sought for the relief U/s 18 to 22 of PWDV Act and also moved application U/s 23(2) of PWDV Act seeking interim maintenance at the rate of 25,000 per month.
14. The respondent in his objection has denied all the allegations made by the petitioner in her petition, except admitting the marital relationship. He has taken contention that he has never neglected the petitioner nor demanded 16 Crl.A.No.802/2023 any dowry. He and his family members have not harassed the petitioner and not caused any domestic violence. He has taken contention that inorder to counterblast to his legal notice dated 1.11.2021, the petitioner has filed false petition.
15. The learned JMFC ( MMTC- V) opined that in a place like Bangalore, an ordinary person can also earn minimum of Rs 20,000 to 25,000 per month. Even if minimum wage is taken into consideration, the income of the respondent No. 1 will br Rs. 15,000 per month. Therefore the learned magistrate directed the respondent No. 1 to pay monthly maintenance of Rs 8,000 to the petitioner as interim maintenance. It is further clarified that if the respondent No. 1 is paying any maintenance to the petitioner in any other proceedings, same maybe adjusted / set off towards maintenance amount ordered. Thus on plain reading of the order passed by Learned JMFC(MMTC- V), one thing is very clear that if the respondent No. 1 paying any maintenance to the petitioner in any other proceedings, 17 Crl.A.No.802/2023 same maybe adjusted/ setoff. The learned counsel for appellant argued that the family court in Criminal Misc No. 25/ 2022 already passed an order to pay maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000 to the petitioner. But the petitioner has suppressed the same in this Criminal Misc No. 27/2022. The learned counsel for the appellant produced copy of depositions in Criminal Misc No. 25/2022 and CIS copy of order passed by Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in WP No. 31288/ 2025. The order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka would go to show that the Hon'ble High Court stayed further proceedings passed in Criminal Misc No. 25/2022 dated 31.01.2024 passed by VI Addl. Principal Judge Family court Bangalore on the condition that the present respondent No. 1/ appellant shall continue to pay maintenance of an amount of Rs. 2,000 per month to his wife. Since the learned Magistrate is passed an order while granting interim maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month, that if the respondent No. 1 is paying any maintenance to the petitioner in any other proceedings, the same maybe adjusted or set off, under such circumstances, it cannot be 18 Crl.A.No.802/2023 held that there is a double benefit given to the petitioner in these 2 cases. Hence this appellate court of the opinion that any orders passed in Criminal Misc No. 24/2022 by Family Court does not affect the respondent, as any maintenance paid is adjustable or can be set off.
16. The petitioner in her asset and liability statement stated that her husband respondent no. 1 having monthly income of Rs 75,000 from AC Fitter work and getting a rent more than Rs 60,000 per month. Inorder to substantiate such contention and to show the exact income of the respondent no. 1, she has not produced documents. No doubt if any person having private job, there may not be any documents to show the exact earnings from the private work. The exact income of the respondent no. 1 can be ascertained only after full fledged trial. On perusal of the asset and liability statement filed by the petitioner, she stated her qualification as BA (MA discontinued). The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is undergraduate. The petitioner is more 19 Crl.A.No.802/2023 educationally qualified than the appellant. The appellant is working as a labor. He is hardly earning sum of Rs 10,000 per month. He is doing fabrication work. But he is not getting work everyday. If his average monthly income is calculated, he is hardly earning 5,000 per month. But the trial court awarded interim maintenance of Rs 8,000 per month which is more than the monthly income of the appellant. She argued that the trial court has misinterpreted regarding the general monthly expenses and the earnings of the respondent no. 1. The trial court had wrongly considered and misunderstand the affidavit of the respondent No. 1. Hence the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case Rajnesh V/s Neha and others, Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 31296/2003 (GM -FC) decided on 2.08.2005. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in RPFAM No. 417 of 2023 and judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Crl. REV. P. 273/2023 and Crl. MA. 6767/2023 20 Crl.A.No.802/2023 decided on 19.03.2025. In this appeal, despite sufficient opportunity given to the learned counsel for respondent, the learned counsel for respondent has not addressed the arguments.
17. There is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant. In the asset and liability affidavit of the respondent No. 1/ appellant, he has stated that he is a labor. He stated that his monthly income is 10,000 per month. He has stated that in this DV Act petition, already interim maintenance of Rs 5,000 is awarded. Since neither petitioner nor respondent no. 1 produced any documents regarding their income proof, the trial court is right in making guess work of the income of the respondent no. 1. The trial court considered the income of the respondent no. 1 at the rate of 15,000 per month. Since the trial court is considered the minimum wages as the income of the respondent and assessed the income as 15,000 per month, out of this income, awarding interim maintenance as 8,000 per month is exorbitant one. This appellate court of the opinion that if the interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000 21 Crl.A.No.802/2023 month would meet the ends of justice. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court cited by learned counsel for the appellant in Rajnesh V/s Neha is aptly applicable to the present case. While deciding the maintenance, we have to consider the status of the parties, the lawful needs of the applicant, respondent's income and property, employment status of the parties, earning capacity of the parties. The petitioner has not produced any documents to show that the respondent No.1/ appellant owns any immovable property. The petitioner is more qualified than respondent. Hence in view of my above discussion, this appellate court of the opinion that respondent No. 1/ appellant shall be directed to pay monthly interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000 to the petitioner from the date of application till final disposal of the petition in Criminal Misc No. 27/2022. Hence I answered point No. 1 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
18. POINT NO. 2:- in view of my finds on point no.1, i proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
This appeal filed by the appellant Under
Section 29 of PWDV Act against the respondent 22 Crl.A.No.802/2023 partly allowed. The interim order of maintenance passed by the Learned JMFC (MMTC-V), Bengaluru in Cri Misc No. 27/2022 is modified by reducing monthly interim maintenance from Rs.8,000 to Rs. 7,000/-
The respondent No. 1 / appellant is directed to pay Rs. 7,000 per month to the petitioner as interim maintenance from the date of the application filed in Cri Misc No. 27/2022 before learned JMFC(MMTC-V) Bangalore till disposal of that case. If the respondent No. 1/ appellant is paying any maintenance to the petitioner in any other proceedings, the same shall be adjusted/ set off towards maintenance amount ordered in this case in Cri Misc No. 27/2022. (The proof of such payment of any interim maintenance shall be reflected in the order sheet of the proceedings).
The office is directed to send the copy of this judgment to learned JMFC(MMTC-V) Bangalore for information and further action. [Pleadings dictated to SG-I, transcribed and typed by him, and findings prepared by Presiding Officer at Home-Office, and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 12th day of MARCH 2026] (MOHAN PRABHU), LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.