MR MOHAMMAD MOEENUDDIN vs Ms SHIREEN ALIAS NAGMA

- 1 -
RPFC No. 130 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 130 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMAD MOEENUDDIN,
S/O. MOHAMMAD SULAIMAN ASHWAQ
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT AKBAR MANZIL,
2ND MAIN OPP HOLSALA COLLEGE,
TANK MOHALLA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
Ms. SHIREEN ALIAS NAGMA
W/O. MOHAMMAD MOHINUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT PENSION MOHALLA
BAR LINE ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. KUM. FALAK NAAZ,
D/O. MOHAMMAD MOEENUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,
R/AT PENSSION MOHALLA
BAR LINE ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.
(SINCE MINOR,
REPRESENTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRABHAKAR SHETTY S. K., ADVOCATE
FOR R1 (ABSENT);
R2- MINOR, REP. BY R1)

- 2 -
RPFC No. 130 of 2025
THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.01.2025 PASSED
IN Crl. MISC NO.23/2024 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU., PARTLY ALLOWING THE
PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF Cr.P.C., FOR
MAINTENANCE.
THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
13.10.2026
FOR ORDERS ON , COMING ON THIS DAY,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CAV ORDER
This revision petition is filed seeking the Court to set
aside the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Court of
Principal Judge, Family Court, Chikkamagaluru, in
Crl.Misc.No.23/2024.
2. Wife and child who are the respondents herein
filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the
petitioner herein claiming maintenance of Rs.25,000/- per
month. Family Court by subjecting the evidence of PW1
and Exs.P1 to P18 to scrutiny directed petitioner to pay
respondent No.1/wife a sum of Rs.8,000/- and respondent

- 3 -
RPFC No. 130 of 2025
No.2/daughter a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month towards
their maintenance.
3. Heard Sri.B.Pradeep, who represented Sri.Lethif
B., learned counsel on record with the petitioner. Though
sufficient opportunities were granted to the respondents to
make their submission on the merits of the matter, they
failed to represent.
4. This revision petition is filed mainly on the
ground that the defence of the revision petitioner was
struck down and he was not permitted to lead evidence by
the Family Court as submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
contended that in the domestic violence case filed by
respondent No.1/wife, a direction was issued to the
petitioner to pay her a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month.
Through the impugned order Family Court directed
petitioner to pay wife a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month and
the child a sum of Rs.4,000/- per month. Thus, the
petitioner is under obligation to pay total sum of

- 4 -
RPFC No. 130 of 2025
Rs.18,000/- per month. Financial position of the petitioner
does not permit to pay such huge amount. Learned
counsel also submitted that given an opportunity, the
petitioner will file his statement of assets and liabilities and
will also adduce evidence. Learned counsel thereby sought
to remand the matter to the Family Court.
5. The certified copy of proceeding sheets reveals
that Family Court directed both parties to submit their
affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities through
order dated 18.09.2024. The matter was adjourned from
30.09.2024 to 05.10.2024, thereafter to 10.10.2024, then
to 25.10.2024 and 08.11.2024. On 08.11.2024 respondent
No.1/Petitioner No.1 filed her bank account statement as
well as the affidavit disclosing assets and liabilities.
Petitioner/respondent did not chose to file his affidavit.
Therefore, the matter was adjourned to 16.11.2024. Even
on 16.11.2024, petitioner did not file. Thereafter, the case
was adjourned to 02.12.2024, 10.12.2024, 16.12.2024,
21.12.2024 and finally to 26.12.2024. Despite granting
such number of opportunities, the petitioner/respondent

- 5 -
RPFC No. 130 of 2025
has not chosen to file his affidavit disclosing his assets and
liabilities. Also Petitioner/respondent failed to cross
examine PW1. Therefore, the defence of the
petitioner/respondent was struck down. No reasonable
ground is stated as to why the petitioner/respondent could
not file his statement of assets and liabilities as mandated
by the Apex Court through the judgment in the case of
Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC
324.
6. Another ground urged is that in the domestic
violence case the petitioner was directed to pay
respondent No.1 a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month towards
maintenance and the sum ordered to be paid through the
impugned order is in addition to the sum which the
petitioner is liable to pay through the orders in domestic
violence case. However, the impugned order reveals that
the Family Court has taken care of that aspect also. At
para 16 of the impugned order following observation is
made.

- 6 -
RPFC No. 130 of 2025
" To avoid divergent view in respect of
grant of maintenance, at this stage itself it
shall be made it clear that, the petitioners
shall not press the relief of claim
maintenance in the earlier petition filed by
them in Crl.Mis.147/2019 on the file of
learned II Additional Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., Shivamogga."
7. Also in the operative portion of the order a
direction was issued to the respondents herein to not
press the relief of maintenance in the petition filed by
respondent No.1 in Crl.Misc.No.147/2019 which is pending
before the Court of II Additional Civil Judge, Shivamogga.
Thus, the petitioner is under liability to pay maintenance
as directed in the impugned order. Further, as the
negligence on part of the petitioner in pursuing the case is
borne by record, he cannot now seek to set aside the
impugned order and to remand the matter back to the
Family Court for fresh consideration. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that there are no grounds to grant the relief
sought for.

- 7 -
RPFC No. 130 of 2025
8. Resultantly, the following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM