Karnataka High Court
Mr Mohammed Sali vs Smt Ramla @ on 8 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:28038
CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1801 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED SALI
AGED 50 YEARS,
SON OF HAJI ABDUL RAZAK,
R/O KHAZI MANZIL,
BEEBI ALABI ROAD,
MANGALURU-1.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAMLA @ RAZIYA @ RAZEENA
AGED 40 YEARS,
W/O HASSAN ALI NOORSI
2. FATHIMA SHIREEN
AGED 18 YEARS
3. BABY AYESHA SHEENI,
Digitally
signed by AGED 13 YEARS,
SUMA
Location: NOS.2 AND 3 ARE THE DAUGHTERS OF
HIGH
COURT OF NO.1 AND HASSAN ALI NOORSI.
KARNATAKA
NO.2 IS THE MINOR REPRESENTED BY
HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN NO.1
SMT RAMLA @ RAZIYA @ RAZEENA.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MALLIKA APARTMENT,
1ST FLOOR, N.G. ROAD,
ATTAVAR, MANGALORE-575001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH P.H., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.S. SACHIN, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:28038
CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. C.J. AND
J.M.F.C., MANGALORE IN M.C.NO.186/2004 AND ALSO THE ORDER
DATED 16.02.2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. DIST. AND S.J.,
MANGALORE IN CRL.R.P.NO.20/2011 CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF
THE TRIAL COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT UNDER
SECTION 125 OF CR.P.C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the husband challenging an order dated 10.01.2011 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in M.C.No.186/2004 and the order dated 16.02.2015 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru (henceforth referred to as 'revisional Court') in Crl.R.P.No.20/2011 by which, the order of the Trial Court was confirmed.
2. The respondents herein claimed to be the wife and daughters of the petitioner herein and claimed that the petitioner had abandoned them and thus filed M.C.No.186/2004 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance of -3- NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015 Rs.5,000/- each per month. It is contended that the respondent No.1 herein was given in marriage to the petitioner on 16.08.1993 and both of them were living at Flat No.1, Shanthi Soudha Apartment, Kaprigudda, Mangaluru. They claimed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were born from the wedlock. They claimed that the petitioner was harassing them and had lodged false complaint against the respondent No.1 and her relatives, accusing them of robbing him of a sum of Rs.2,85,000/-, his mobile and his car, which resulted in Crime No.259/2000. The jurisdictional police thereafter investigated the case and filed 'B' report. They contended that the petitioner filed a private complaint for an offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC where the Court had taken cognizance in C.C.No.4520/2003, which was quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.346/2004. They claimed that the petitioner attempted to ram his car into the car driven by the respondent No.1 with an intention to kill all the respondents. Thereafter, too he continued his attempts to cause physical harm to the respondents. They claimed that the petitioner was a businessman leading a luxurious life in Mangaluru and he had sufficient means from various source of income and he was also -4- NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015 owning several properties in Mangaluru. The respondent No.1 claimed that her parents had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and 50 sovereign gold ornaments at the time of her marriage with the petitioner and the petitioner had willfully and deliberately neglected them and any amount of intervention by the friends, relatives and family members proved futile. Therefore, they filed a petition claiming maintenance from the petitioner.
3. The petitioner contested the claim petition contending that the respondent No.1 was earlier given in marriage to a person named, Mr. Hassanali Noorsi of Kasaragod Taluk on 02.06.1983 and that they were living as husband and wife. He denied any relationship with the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and therefore, he contended that there was no obligation to maintain any of the respondents. He claimed that the respondent No.1 was running a hotel by name 'Sana Fast Food' at Pandeshwara, Mangaluru and also owned a Maruthi 800 Car bearing registration No.KA-19-P-203 in her name. He therefore, contended that the respondents also had sufficient means to look after themselves.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015
4. Based on these rival contentions, the Trial Court posted the case for trial. The respondent No.1 was examined as PW.1. She marked documents as Exs.P1 to P18. She also examined her neighbour as PW.2, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta as PW.3 and her mother as PW.4. The petitioner was examined as RW.1 and he examined two witnesses as RW.2 and RW.3 and marked Exs.R1 to R4.
5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the petitioner was unable to prove that the respondent No.1 continued to be the wife of Mr. Hassanali Noorsi. It also held that the documents placed on record indicated that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were husband and wife and were residing under the same roof as husband and wife for a long time. Consequently, it held that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the children of the petitioner and respondent No.1. It also perused the evidence of PW.3, who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who disclosed the number of cases that were registered by the respondent No.1 as well as the petitioner against each other. It also considered the evidence of PW.4 and held that though the respondent No.1 was given in marriage to Mr. Hassanali Noorsi -6- NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015 yet, the marriage was treated as faskh and was dissolved long back prior to the marriage of respondent No.1 with the petitioner. Having regard to the acrimony between the parties, it held that there was evidence to indicate that the petitioner had failed to maintain the respondents. Consequently, the Trial Court allowed the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to the respondent No.1 and Rs.5,000/- each per month to respondent Nos.2 and 3.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.20/2011. The revisional court secured the records of the Trial Court, heard the learned counsel for the parties and in terms of its impugned order, dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court.
7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner/husband has filed this petition.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is evidence to indicate that the respondent No.1 was earlier given in marriage to a person named, Mr. Hassanali -7- NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015 Noorsi and that there was no evidence to indicate that the marriage was dissolved. Therefore, the respondent No.1 cannot be treated as wife of the petitioner and hence, she was not entitled to claim any maintenance. He also claimed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not related to the petitioner by blood and that they were the children of respondent No.1 from Mr. Hassanali Noorsi. He therefore, contended that there was no obligation on the petitioner to maintain the respondents.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the respondent No.1 was given in marriage to a person named Mr. Hassanali Noorsi in the year 1983, it was dissolved and later the petitioner and respondent No.1 were living as husband and wife under the same roof from the year 1993. He submitted that the documentary evidence placed on record in the form of birth certificates of respondent Nos.2 and 3, the voters list at Ex.P7 as well as passbook at Ex.P9 and two photographs at Exs.P16 and P17 all indicate that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were husband and wife. He submitted that the except the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 was given in marriage to Mr. Hassanali -8- NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015 Noorsi, there was no material to establish that the respondent No.1 continued to live with Mr. Hassanali Noorsi. Hence, he contended that the respondents were entitled to claim maintenance.
10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. I have also perused the records of the Trial Court and the revisional Court as well as the orders of both the Courts.
11. It is evident from the records that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were living under the same roof and this is established by the photographs at Exs.P16 and P17 as well as birth certificates of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as Exs.P1 and P2. The voters list at Ex.P7 also indicate that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were residing under one roof. The respondent No.1 did not dispute the fact that she was given in marriage to a person named Mr. Hassanali Noorsi. However, she claimed that the marriage was dissolved and the same is accepted by PW.4 - mother of respondent No.1. Except the self-serving statement of the petitioner that the respondents -9- NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015 were residing with Mr. Hassanali Noorsi, he did not produce any material proof in that regard. Therefore, it has to be irresistibly held that the petitioner and respondent No.1 were husband and wife residing under one roof and respondent Nos.2 and 3 were the children of the petitioner. Further more, the petitioner seemed to be a man of means as he owned two cars. One being a Fiat Palio, 2004 model as per Ex.P18 and another a Maruthi Zen car bearing registration No.KA-19-5885. He also was residing at Presidium, a posh apartment complex at Attavar, Mangalore. He also alleged that the respondent No.1 and her relatives had snatched a sum of Rs.2,85,000/-, his mobile phone and the Maruthi Zen car. However, he did not disclose his source of income but merely denied the allegations made about his income. He claimed that he had married Vahida and had a daughter named Fathima Sarvar. He alleged that at the request of a relative of respondent No.1 namely Sri. Vahab, he gave the flat at Shanthi Soudha to the respondent No.1 and her mother on rent. He claimed that he was impotent and was treated for it and could father a child only in the year 2000 and hence contended that he had not fathered the respondent Nos.2 and 3. Strangely, his bank pass book at
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:28038 CRL.P No. 1801 of 2015 South Indian Bank Ltd. (Ex.P9) showed his occupation as 'business'. He did not come out clean about the ownership of the flat at 'Presidium' where he was living. Thus, he owned a flat at 'Presidium' and a flat at 'Shanthi Soudha' and had a business. He admitted that his father was doing business in sale of dry fish and that he was running a stone crushing unit. He also used to frequently travel for Haj. He did not produce his passport for the Court to assess the frequency of travel. Therefore, it could be assumed that the petitioner was a man of means and thus could maintain the respondents.
12. In that view of the matter, having regard to the cost of living in a city like Mangaluru, the maintenance of Rs.5,000/- each per month awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the revisional Court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference.
Hence, this petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1