IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA

Cr.R.P.No.____/2019

PETITIONER : Shaukat Ali

S/o Mehaboob
Aged 35 years,
Coolie by Profession
Navalagunda Taluk,
Darvad District

Vs.

RESPONDENTS : 1. Chand
D/o Shaukat Ali
Aged 5years, minor.

2. Suhana
D/o Shaukat Ali
Aged 3years, minor.
Both are represented byt their mother
Smt. Mehboobi W/o Shaukat Ali
R/o Mallikarjuna extension
Tunga Nagar, Shivamogga.

U/S 397 OF CRPC REVISION PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF III ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SHIVAMOGGA PASSED IN C.MISC NO. 740/2017 DATED
20/10/2019

1. The address of the parties for the purpose of issue of notice etc. is as stated in the cause
title.

2. The revision petitioner prefers this petition to set aside the order dated 20/10/2019
granting maintenance to the respondents U/S 125 CrPC by III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC
Shivamogga in C.Misc. No. 740/2017.
BRIEF FACTS

1. Smt. Mehboobi the wife of the revision petitioner filed petition U/S 125 of CrPC for
grant of maintenance to herself and also her minor children before the III Additional Civil Judge
and JMFC Shivamogga in C.Misc.No. 740/2017. The revision petitioner on its appearance filed
objections and sought for dismissal of the petition. The main defence taken by the revision
petitioner is that his wife is guilty of desertion along with the children and inspite of a decree for
restitution of conjugal rights along with children passed in OS No. 51/2016 by the Civil Judge
Junior Division Navalgunda, the wife has not restored the conjugal rights. The revision petitioner
is a Coolie and has no income so as to give separate maintenance. He also offered the wife and
children to maintain on condition to live with him.

2. The learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Shivamogga after recording the
evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments passed an order on 20/10/ 2019 partly allowing
the petition granting maintenance at Rs. 1500/- per month from the date of petition to the
children i.e., respondents of the case.

3. The legality, proprietary and correctness of the above order is challenged in this revision
on the following amongst other grounds.

GROUNDS

1. The lower Court has erred in not noticing the fact that inspite of the decree passed in OS
No. 51/2016 by the Civil Judge Navalgunda, the guardian/mother of the respondent has not
restored the custody of the respondents to the revision petitioner.

2. The lower court has erred in not noticing the fact that there is no neglect or refusal on the
part of the revision petitioner to maintain the respondents and hence he is not liable to pay
separate maintenance.

3. The lower court has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the revision petitioner has
willfully neglected the respondents.
4. The lower court although noticed that land in SY.No. 204 of Padesur village Navalgunda
Taluk, exclusive belongs to the father of the revision petitioner, wrongfully arrived at the
conclusion that the revision petitioner has sufficient income from the said land.

5. The lower Court has erred in not noticing that during the lifetime of the father the
revision petition has no right, title or interest over the self acquired property of his father so as to
draw any income from the said land.

6. The lower court without any reason jumped into the conclusion that the revision
positioner is liable to pay maintenance from the date of the order.

7. The court has not taken into consideration the genuine offer made by the revision
petitioner to maintain the respondents on the condition of their living with the revision petitioner
and such offer is refused by the mother of the respondents without any just or reasonable ground.

8. The Court without considering the fact that the revision petitioner is just a Coolie by
profession has awarded maintenance at Rs. 1500/- per month each, to the respondents which is
highly excessive one compared to the actual income of the revision petitioner.

9. The order of the trial court is dated 20/10/2019 and the certified copy are derived on
26/10/2019 revision filed today is in time.

Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed on behalf of the revision petitioner that the
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records of C.Misc. No. 40/2017 from the file of III
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Shivamogga to examine the correctness, legality and propriety
of the order dated 20/10/2019 and SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER BY ALLOWING THIS
REVISION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

Place: Advocate for Revision Petitioner

Date: _______________________