Shri Imran S/O. Riyazahmed Butlar vs. Smt. Sameena W/O. Imran Butlar
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner-wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, alleging neglect and inhuman treatment by the respondent-husband. The marriage took place on February 20, 2015, and there were no children. The respondent-husband denied the allegations, stating the petitioner was not a dutiful wife. After examining witnesses and documents, the Family Court, by an order dated March 25, 2024, directed the respondent-husband to pay ₹45,000/- per month as maintenance. The respondent-husband filed RPFC No. 100106/2024 challenging this amount, while the petitioner-wife filed RPFC No. 100083/2024 seeking enhancement of the maintenance.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner-wife is entitled to maintenance as she has no source of income and resides with her parents. Regarding the quantification, the Court perused the respondent-husband's affidavit of Assets and Liabilities, which revealed he is the sole son and has purchased multiple properties in Bengaluru, some jointly with his father. His Income Tax Returns showed significant income in FY 2020-21 (₹9,71,730/-) and a reduced amount in FY 2021-22 (₹1,65,000/-). While his GST registration for 'Exhume India Trading Company' was cancelled on March 18, 2021, GST returns indicated a business of 'Coffee and Spices Enterprises', suggesting continued business activity. The Court found that the respondent-husband has an individual business and the capability to pay ₹45,000/- maintenance. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in *Rajnesh v. Neha*, *Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena*, and *Shailja v. Khobbanna*, the Court held that the wife's capability to earn does not automatically disentitle her to maintenance or warrant a reduction in the granted amount. The Family Court's assessment of the material on record and the respondent-husband's financial status for fixing maintenance was deemed just and proper. Consequently, both petitions were dismissed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the quantification of monthly maintenance at ₹45,000/- by the Family Court requires interference by this Court, considering the respondent-husband's financial status and the petitioner-wife's qualifications? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on Section 125 of Cr.P.C.). Petitioner's (Respondent-Husband's) Arguments: - The maintenance amount of ₹45,000/- is excessive and not supported by the material on record. - The respondent-husband's business was not as stated, and his GST registration was cancelled. - The petitioner-wife is a graduate in commerce and is qualified to earn for herself. - The Family Court failed to consider the interim maintenance of ₹12,000/- per month previously directed by this Court in W.P.No.101175/2022. Respondent's (Petitioner-Wife's) Arguments: - The Family Court did not adequately consider the respondent-husband's status when fixing maintenance. - The maintenance amount should be enhanced by this Court.
Sections Cited
Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned senior counsel Sri.Nusrat Shah on behalf of Sri.Srinivas Nadamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100106/2024 and learned counsel Sri. Siddesh G Kulkarni and Sri. Deepak S Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100083/2024. 2. For the sake convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Family Court.
Challenging the order dated 25.03.2024 in Crl.Misc.258/2019 passed by the I-Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Belagavi (for short “the Family Court”), the respondent-husband in Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 filed RPFC No.100106/2024 seeking modification of the impugned order and the petitioner-wife in Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 filed RPFC No.100083/2024 seeking enhancement of maintenance amount awarded by the Family Court.
The relevant facts for adjudication of these petitions are that the petitioner-wife has filed Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 before the Family Court stating that her marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 20.02.2015 at Bengaluru. It is also stated in the claim petition that no children were born in their wedlock. It is also stated in the claim petition that the respondent-husband neglected the petitioner-wife and has not provided the basic needs to the petitioner. It is also alleged in the petition that because of unfitness of the respondent- husband, she did not become pregnant and as such, without tolerating the inhuman treatment in the matrimonial home, the petitioner has left the matrimonial home and started residing with her parents. Hence, the petitioner has filed Crl.Misc.No.258/2019 on the file of the Family Court seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband.
On service of notice, the respondent-husband entered appearance and filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition except admitting the relationship with the petitioner as his wife. It is also stated in the statement of objection that the petitioner was not living as a dutiful wife in the matrimonial home and she was quarreling with him as well as his family members and therefore, prayed to dismissal of the claim petition. NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528
In order to establish their case, the petitioner has examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and produced 11 documents and same were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The respondent himself was examined as RW1 and produced 9 documents and same were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R9. 4. 3. The Family Court after considering the material on record, by its order dated 25.03.2024 allowed the claim petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., in part and directed the respondent-husband to pay the monthly maintenance of ₹45,000/- to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-husband has filed RPFC No.100106/2024 challenging the maintenance granted by the Family Court and on the other hand, the petitioner-wife has filed RPFC No.100083/2024 seeking enhancement of the maintenance.
Sri. Nusrat Shah, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of Sri. Sri.Srinivas Nadamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in RPFC No.100106/2024 submits that the finding recorded by the Family Court to quantify the maintenance of ₹45,000/- per month is on the higher side and the said finding is without considering the material on record NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 despite the fact that the respondent-husband is not doing business as mentioned in the assets and liabilities produced before the Family Court and also he argued that the petitioner- wife being a graduate in commerce is equivalently qualified to earn for herself and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. He also submitted that the respondent-husband has questioned the interim maintenance passed by the Family Court on 17.01.2022 in W.P.No.101175/2022 and this Court, after hearing both the parties, disposed of the petition on 03.11.2023 and directed the respondent-husband to pay monthly maintenance of ₹12,000/- and therefore, this aspect has not been considered by the Family Court while passing the impugned order and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel sought for interference of this Court.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife opposed the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband and further contended that the Family Court without considering the status of the respondent-husband has fixed the monthly maintenance of ₹45,000/- which requires to be enhanced by this Court. Accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528
Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the core question that is to be answered in these petitions is whether the quantification of the maintenance of ₹45,000/- by the Family Court requires interference in these petitions. It is not in dispute with regard to the relationship between the parties as the petitioner has married the respondent on 20.02.2015 but they have no issues. It is also to be noted here by looking into the finding recorded by the Family Court that the parties are residing separately on account of rift in the family life. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner-wife is entitled for maintenance from the respondent-husband as she has stated in her claim petition that she has no source of income and residing with her parents.
Nextly, insofar as consideration of maintenance to be granted to the petitioner-wife is concerned, I have carefully perused the Family Court records wherein the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent-husband reveals that he is the only son to his parents and has purchased a property at brigade gardens bearing Unit No.37/38 ground floor, located at No.19, Church Street, Bengaluru and the said NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 property stands in the name of himself and his father. It is also forthcoming from the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent-husband that, the respondent-husband along with his father has purchased Apartment No.1-A, Corporation No.102/2,Tawakkal Regency, St.Johns Church Road, Bengaluru. That apart, he has also purchased apartment at Unit No.L1-0, Ground Floor, Splendid Plaza, HRBR Layout, II Block, Banaswadi, Bengaluru along which his father. By looking into the affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent- husband it is also forthcoming from the finding recorded by the Family Court that the respondent-husband admits in his evidence with regard to confronting Ex.P11 that the Income Tax Returns for the year 2020-21 is shown as ₹9,71,730/- and drastically it is shown as ₹1,65,000/- in the year 2021-2022. It is also forthcoming from the records that the respondent- husband had a business in the name “Exhume India Trading Company”. However, in the said business, the GST register number was cancelled on 18.03.2021 during the pendency of the petition before the Family Court. It is also forthcoming from I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the petitioner in RPFC No.100106/2024 that he has a business of ‘Coffee and Spices Enterprises’ as per NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 the GST returns form filed and these aspects make it clear that the respondent-husband has an individual business and also having capability of paying maintenance of ₹45,000/- to the petitioner-wife. Insofar as RPFC No.100083/2024 filed by the petitioner-wife is concerned, taking into account that the petitioner is residing at Belagavi along with her parents, the grant of maintenance made by the Family Court is just and proper. The Family Court has considered the entire material on record and affidavit of Assets and Liabilities filed by the respondent-husband for quantification of maintenance in accordance with law.
Taking into account the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha and others1, it is needless to say that the purpose of Section 125 of Cr.P.C., is to provide minimum relief to the applicant/wife for her livelihood and the said fact is also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena and others2. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-husband argued that the 1 (2021) 2 SCC 324 2 2015 (6) SCC 353 NC: 2025:KHC-D:1528 petitioner-wife is a B.Com., graduate, however, merely because the wife is capable of earning is not a sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance granted by the Family Court as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailja v. Khobbanna3 and therefore, I do not find any merit in both the petitions, accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed. (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE
YAN Ct:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
3 AIR 2017 SC 1174
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.