Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE
WRIT PETITION NO.39211 OF 2012(GM-FC)
BETWEEN
Mohammed Tayab Yousuf, S/o Mohammed Zabiulla, Aged about 26 years, Residing at No.96/1, Nehruji Colony, Near Balavidya Bhavan School, GAURIBIDANUR – 561 208.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri Gururaj Kulkarni, Adv.,)
AND
Noor Asma H.M, D/O Mr.Munawar Pasha, Aged about 24 years, No.20, 1st Floor, 11th Cross, Someshwar Nagar, Jayanagar 1st Block, Tank Garden, Bangalore – 560 011.
... RESPONDENT
THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2012 ON I.A.NO.2 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE IN CR.MISC. NO.49/2011 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.
THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
2 PC:
This petition is directed against the order dated 17th Aug. 2012 passed by the 5th Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, in Crl. Misc. 49/2011 whereby interim maintenance of Rs.7,500/- p.m. has been awarded in favour of the respondent-wife.
The respondent-wife in her petition claims that her husband is in business and running his business in the name of Khanum Communications at Gowribidanur and earning about Rs.1,00,000/- p.m. In support of her case she placed on record 11 photographs indicating that the petitioner in fact runs the business of sales and services of mobile instruments of different companies in addition to recharging mobile instruments. He did not disclose his income before Court. Therefore, the Court below has rightly taken Rs.25,000/- p.m. income of the appellant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not getting even half the income of Rs.25,000/- taken by the Court. Though petitioner alleged that the respondent-wife is also working and getting salary and paying income tax, he did not place any material whatsoever in support of his
3 claim / allegation. It is in this backdrop, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below awarding maintenance of Rs.7,500/- p.m. from the date of application. The Judgment of Delhi High Court relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in DAMANREET KAUR versus INDERMEET JUNEJA & ANR. dated 14.05.2012 in Crl.Rev.P.344/2011, in my opinion has absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. Hence the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SAK