IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.42956/2017 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
SRI. ABU KAMARUL ISLAM S/O LATE UMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NO. 340, 20TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MALLASANDRA, RAVINDRA NAGARA, BENGALURU – 560067. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.R. NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADV.) AND:
SMT. SAJIDA W/O SRI. ABU KAMARUL ISLAM, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO. 229, B BLOCK, 13TH CROSS, JANGAM LAYOUT, LINGARAJAPURA, BENGALURU – 560084. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 4.8.2017 PASSED BY THE VI ADDL. FAMILY COURT JUDGE, BENGALURU IN C.MISC NO. 110/2015 AT ANNEXURE-D ON IA FILED U/S 125 OF CR.PC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 04.08.2017 passed in C.Misc.No.110/2015 as at Annexure-D to the petition.
2. The petitioner herein is the husband of the respondent. Due to certain marital disputes, they appear to be residing separately. The respondent herein contending that the petitioner has failed to maintain her has filed the petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the said proceedings, an application seeking interim maintenance has been filed. The Court below, through the order impugned dated 04.08.2017 has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as maintenance to the respondent herein. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the order would contend that the evidence as tendered ought not to have been taken note by the Court below, since the evidence through affidavit is not permissible in a proceedings of the present nature. It is further contended that the petitioner herein was permitting the respondent to collect the rent from the two shops and was also making payment for the groceries that was received by the respondent on credit from the shop of a friend. In that view, it is contended, when steps are taken by the petitioner to maintain the respondent, the order is not justified.
4. Having taken note of the contention as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the petition papers, including the order impugned herein.
5. Insofar as the contention that an affidavit had been filed, what is necessary to be noticed is that, the instant order is on the Interlocutory Application and in that circumstance, even a consideration based on the averments as made therein would suffice inasmuch as only a prima facie conclusion is required to be reached. In that regard, when the Court below has taken note of the fact that there is no dispute relating to the relationship and further, when there is no material on record to indicate that the actual quantum of maintenance was being paid, the Court below has also taken into consideration that the respondent has denied that she is presently collecting the rents and is being provided any maintenance.
6. In that view of the matter, when the relationship is not in dispute and in any event, the petitioner is required to pay the maintenance to the respondent, the meager amount of Rs.3,000/- per month that has been ordered by the Court below does not call for interference.
Accordingly, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST