- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3584 RPFC No. 200060 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 200060 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SHAIK MOHAMMED ALAZ BASHA S/O SHAIK MOHAMMED ASLAM BASHA, AGE: 35 YEARS,OCC: NIL, R/O: 87-1108 MLC 42, BESIDES MARIADAN, SOMISHETTY NAGAR, KURNOOL – 518 002. AT PRESENT ADDRESS …PETITIONER (BY SRI R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMLA ZIA W/O SHAIK MOHAMMED AJAZ BASHA, D/O SYED ZIYADDIN, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: H.NO.2-06-71 GHALIB NAGAR, RAICHUR – 585 401. 2. KUMARI ZAARA SHAIK D/O SHAIK MOHAMMED, AGE: 06 YEARS, MINOR, UNDER THE GUARDIANSHIP OF HIS MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1 ABOVE, R/O: H.NO.2-06-71 GHALIB NAGAR, RAICHUR – 585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1) Digitally signed by NIJAMUDDIN JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3584 RPFC No. 200060 of 2024 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27-04-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT RAICHUR IN CRIMINAL MISC NO.222/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS RPFC, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 27.04.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Raichur, in C.Misc.no.222/2023, this petition is filed. 2. Sri RS Lagali, learned counsel for petitioner submitted, facts in brief leading to this petition were, marriage of petitioner and respondent was performed as per Hindu Customs on 08.01.2017. And from wedlock, respondent no.2 was born. Thereafter, on allegation of negligence, respondent left company of petitioner and began residing separately. She filed C.Misc.no.222/2023 for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. 1973. By order dated 11.06.1997, said petition was allowed in part granting maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to each respondents. Aggrieved by said order, present petition was filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3584 RPFC No. 200060 of 2024 3. It was submitted, respondent was admittedly employed with Tata Consultancy Services and drawing salary of Rs.6,40,000/-, since she was capable of earning, her claim for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. would not be tenable. It was submitted, said provision contemplated relief only if petitioner was unable to maintain herself. Without appreciating said fact, impugned order was passed, therefore sought interference. 4. It was further submitted petitioner had entered into financial commitments after marriage in form of borrowing housing loans etc., and was servicing said debts by paying EMIs. Consequently, his net salary was much lower than his gross income. Therefore, order for payment of Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance for wife as well as daughter separately was unjustified and sought interference. 5. Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for respondents opposed petition. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3584 RPFC No. 200060 of 2024 7. Since, this revision petition is by husband aggrieved by order of Family Court directing petitioner to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to each of respondents, as being contrary to law, point that arises for consideration is: "Whether impugned order calls for interference?" 8. At outset, in this petition, by husband challenging order of Family Court, awarding maintenance to wife and daughter, relationship between parties is not in dispute. Revision petition is assailing order only on quantum. 9. In so far as quantum of maintenance is concerned, High Court of Allahabad in Veena Panda alias Seema Panda v. Devendra Kumar Panda, reported in 2006 SCC OnLine All 332 and High Court of Gujarat in Ashokkumar Kantilal Rathod v. Bhavnaben Ashokkumar Rathod reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Guj 342, have held normal rule for awarding maintenance in case of wife would be 1/3rd of net income of husband, in case of child, it could be taken as 1/5th. 10. Bare perusal of impugned order reveals from Exs.P.3 and P.4, Family Court noted gross salary of petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3584 RPFC No. 200060 of 2024 herein was Rs.14,43,000/-. It also noted that in cross- examination, petitioner admitted that he was working as Senior Manager in Company and his pay was as shown in Exs.P.3 and P.4. Family Court further noted that gross salary of petitioner as indicated in Ex.R.9, his pay slip for month of August,2023 was Rs.1,12,177/-, while his net salary was Rs.94,333/-. Even if petitioner were to be paying EMI of Rs.18,315/- as per Exs.R.5 and R.6 and rent of Rs.17,500/- as per Ex.R.1, award of Rs.15,000/- as maintenance to wife and daughter each would still be less than 1/3rd and 1/5th of his net salary. In view of above, there would be no scope for interference. 11. Hence, point for consideration is answered in negative. 12. Consequently, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE Psg* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52