MOHAMMED AMJAD PASHA Vs. NASEEMA BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the husband and first Respondent is his wife; they are an estranged couple. Respondents had filed Crl. Misc. Petition No. 827/2019 u/s.125 of the Cr.P.C .1973 seeking a monthly maintenance of Rs.27,000.00 for herself & two children; the said petition having been favoured, learned V Addl. Prl. Judge of Family Court at Bengaluru vide order dtd. 16/12/2019 has directed the Petitioner-husband to pay collectively a sum of Rs.25,000.00 per month as maintenance. The same is put in challenge in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposes the same.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition papers, this court declines indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the marital relationship with the Respondent is not disputed and the legitimacy of the children is admitted. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that his client does not have sufficient means to pay maintenance is difficult to countenance. Holy Quran and Hadith say that it is the duty of husband to look after his wife & children especially when they are in disablement. No material is produced to show that the Respondent-wife is gainfully employed or that she has any source of income. Even otherwise the principal duty lies on the shoulders of petitioner. The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the amount is too much on the higher side, does not merit acceptance in these costly days when bread is costlier than blood.

(3.) The apart, the impugned order of maintenance is a product of exercise of statutory discretion; for invoking writ remedy under Article 227 a strong case for the violation of rules of reason & justice has to be made out. In the instant case, there is not even a whisper for substantiating the said contention. Therefore, all aspects having been duly considered, this Court opines that the impugned order does not merit a deeper examination in the jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction under vide SADAHANA LODH vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Ltd ., (2003) 3 SCC 524.