ILLYAS AHMED v. RAZIA SULTELANA

(BY SRI ASHOK S. KINAGI. ADVOCATE) AND: 1) RAZIA SULTELANA W/O ILLYAS AHMED AGE: 28 YEARS. 0CC: NIL R/O, C/O R.S.PATEL, H.NO.1-12-J32/17A PARVATHI COLONY. BEHIND DADY COLONY RAICHUR-584 101 2) MADIHA TARNUM D/O ILLYAS AHMED AGE ABOUT 5 YEARS. 0CC: NIL R/O. C/O R.S. PATE. H.NO.1-12-432/17A PARVATHI COLONY. BEHIND DADY COLONY RAICHUR 584 101 (REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER SMT. RAZIA SULTHANA W/O ILLYAS AHMED) RESPONDENTS RPI’C o5O9/2O 12 THIS RPFC IS FILET) U/S. 19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT. AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26,12.2011 PASSED IN CRL. MISC. NO.58/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER. FAST TAK COURT. AND I/C FAMILY COURT JUDGE AT RAICIIUR. PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/S. 127 OF CR.P.C. THIS RPFC COMING ON ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE TI IF FOLLOWING: ORDER H.G.RAMESH, J.(Oral): This revision petition by the husband is directed against the order dated 26.12.2011 passed by the Family Court at Raichur in Cr1. Misc. No.58/2010. By the impugned order, the Family Court has enhanced the monthly maintenance from 1,500 to 5,OO0/- to respondent No.1-wife and from U,000/- to 2,OOO/- to respondent No.2-daughter.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. RPFC No.509/2012 -3-

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that having regard to the income of the petitioner-husband. the maintenance awarded by the Family Court is excessive. He submitted that there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that the petitioner is having sufficient income so as to pay the maintenance now awarded.

The Family Court has considered the aspect of income of the petitioner-husband at paras 15 and 16 of the impugned order, which read as follows: “15. Now, if we come to the evidence of RW-2 his assertion is further falsfyed. Though he pleaded in his vertfying counter filed by him that he never did any business in computers and that he was only a name lender to his friend An war Hussai but during his cross-examination, he categorically admitted that earlier to Ex.R-1 coming into existence computer shop was belonging to him and he was doing computer sales and service. He has RPFC No.509/2012 Power Thermal -4- Iuirther admitted that he was giving service to Kamatalca Power Coiporation Ltd.. and to Bellary Station. Kuduthini. lie has further admitted that he had participated in tender process and thereby getting contract from KPCL and Bellary Thermal power station. Therefore, Ex.P4 to P6, the one got under RTI Act are proved through the admissions qf this RW 2. it stands established that this respondent has misled this court while deciding deposing falsehood that he was only an agricultural cooli. though he had definite source qf Cr1 .Mis.25/08 TherefOre. income by doing computer business. “16. In his further cross examination RW-2 (husband,) has admitted that Illyas Ahmed. proprietor Arc Information and Technology means himsef He has flirt her admitted agricultural cooli work during the period when he was doing computer business. TherefOre, is now clearly established from Ex.P4 to P6 that he had sLjficient means and he has suppressed this fact he was RPFQ No,5O9/2O2 before this court, as such the order passed by this court in Crl, Mis.25/2008 needs to be varied at the instance of petitioners for having placed it on record the material documents. Now the question is, what should be the quantum of enhancement to be marLle to the one already awarded. In Cr1. Misc. 25/2008 this court vide order

12.3.2008 awarded Rs.2,500/- as maintenance. Admittedly that order has not been challenged by either of the parties and hence the said order becomes absolute. The present petition has been filed on 9.4.2010. What was the position of this respondent as on 9.4.2010 is well demonstrated from the positive evidence placed on record in the jbrrn of Exs.P4 to P-6. The new contract that was given by KPC Ltd., is from 1 SI September 2008 to 31st August 2010 and therefore this contract is to be got renewed from time to time. There is no documentary p roof to prove that his contract with Thermal Power coiporation either has come to an end or that it has been terminated. Therefore, the contention of the respondent RPPC N.5O9/2O 12 irrespective -6- that there is no substantial change in his status cannot be accepted. since it was falsely demonstrated in the previous proceedings. Hence. respondent’s educational q ual ifIcai ion it is demonstrated well by respondent himseif that he is capable of running an institution in the name of ARC computers information and Technology and make good earning out of it by securing the annual maintenance from the reputed organizations itseif is stjjicient to hold that the respondent has got suJficient means to provide enhanced maintenance to the petitioners to live up to his standard in the society during the current day standard of Accordingly, living. compensation enhanced from the existing maintenance qf Rs. 1.500/- Rs.5,000/- to petitioner No.1 and from Rs. 1,000/- to Rs.2.000/- to petitioner No.2.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is doing business in Computers in the name of M/s. ARC Computers and that he has substantial income from RPFC No.5O9/2O2 the said business, the maintenance awarded by the Family Court cannot at all he said io be excessive to warrant interference under the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Revision Petition is devoid of meril and ii is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. LG