Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5515 (KAR)

SRI MOHAMMAD NAVEEN BABU S/O MOHAMMAD HUSAIN v. SMT SHEREEN BANU W/O MOHAMMAD NAVEEN BABU

RPFC/100098/2024 · 2025-02-19

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3416 RPFC No. 100098 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100098 OF 2024 (-) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMAD NAVEEN BABU S/O. MOHAMMAD HUSAIN, AGE.48 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER IN KPTCL, NOW AT R/O. BHAGAVATHI LAYOUT, JIGANI HOBLI, BENGALURU – 560105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M. A. MAKANDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHEREEN BANU W/O. MOHAMMAD NAVEEN BABU, AGE.36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RUNNING PROVISIONAL (KIRANI) STORE, R/O. KHARADI MOHALLA, P. B. ROAD, HUBBALLI 580021. 2. KUMARI NEEDA @ NABIYA D/O. MOHAMMAD NAVEEN BABU AGE. 13 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER SMT. SHEREEN BANU, R1 R/O. KHARADI MOHALLA P. B. ROAD, HUBBALLI …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. NIRANJAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3416 RPFC No. 100098 of 2024 THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, IN CRL.MISC.NO.13/2022 DATED 05.03.2024. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by respondent-husband challenging the order dated 05.03.2024 in Crl.Misc.No.13/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi (for short “the Family Court”) granting maintenance to the petitioner-wife. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of petitioner No.1-wife with the respondent-husband was solemnised on 24.01.2009 and in their wedlock petitioner No.2 is born. It is also stated in the petition that initially, the petitioner-wife filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Misc.No.71/2016 and the competent Family Court, by its order dated 10.04.2017 directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹4,000/- to petitioner No.1 and ₹3,000/- per month to petitioner No.2. Thereafter, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3416 RPFC No. 100098 of 2024 petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.13/2022 under Section 127 of Cr.P.C., seeking enhancement of the maintenance on account of escalation of prices as the petitioners are residing in Hubballi. 3.1. On service of notice, respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objections admitting that, the petitioners have filed Crl.Misc.No.71/2016 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and also the respondent-husband is making maintenance to the petitioners therein. The Family Court, after considering the material on record, by its order dated 05.03.2022 in Crl.Misc.No.13/2022 enhanced the maintenance to the petitioners 1 and 2 as ₹8,000/- and ₹5,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed this petition. 4. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that petitioners had earlier filed petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., and the Family Court has awarded monthly maintenance of ₹4,000/- to petitioner No.1-wife and ₹3,000/- to petitioner No.2-child by its order dated 10.04.2017. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3416 RPFC No. 100098 of 2024 5. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are residing separately at Hubballi city and taking into consideration the fact that the respondent-husband is working KPTCL, Bengaluru and it is forthcoming from the pay-slip of the respondent-husband that for the month of December 2024 the salary of the respondent-husband was ₹58,831/-. Taking into consideration the discussions made by the Family Court at paragraph 19 to 21, I am of the view that there is no perversity in the order passed by the Family Court and same is required to be confirmed in this petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. 6. In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE YAN CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5