W.P.NO.1563/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF' FEBRUARY 20
BEFORE '
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAVAQf;*sA:;A 3
WRIT PE'I'I'I'I()N NO. 1563/E_i;()1(31 {GM*-C§>C--).:_': '-
BETWEEN :
Ramakrishna
Aged about 52 years _
S/0 Eate Chinnegowda .
R/ at Keremegala DOddiVi31agé7 _ "
Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk. " ' '
:?:fF1:r1ONER
(By Sri.T. N. Raghupafla3f_' 8:
AND:
O '
Agedabout 31 'y:ea1*s._ .
W/0 late K.C.Sath_i:Sha-~ "
Kum_.ROOHan_a V.
Aggijd about Syears
» ', 12.,/5 late K.xC.Satis'}1a'V
K1i1n{Yas1:- aswini
1" ._ Aged "abs: 1_t 'years
Du/'O 1ate"K§;Ca§'Satisha
Respofident Nos. 2 and 3 are minors
AA Represented by their next friend
_Na'tura1 guardian mother
S'mt.G.P.Anuradha, R-1
Respondent NOs.1 to 3 are
R/at C/O. G.L.PuttasWaIny
V ” A
W’/.0 Puttaswamy
(Pullari Ningegowda],
B.G0udagere Post,
Kasaba Hobali
1\/{andya Taluk.
K.M.Puttaswamy
8/ 0 late Chinnegowda
Aged about 49 years.
Smt.Lingamma
W/0 late Chinnegowda
Aged about 77 years.
Saehin
S/0 Ramakrishna _ Va ;
Aged about 16 years. ‘
Sinehana _ .
D/0 Rarnkrishna _ _
Aged about
Sanjay.,__ ” 1:3′. .,
S/0 Ramkr[sh_–na ,
Agedeabout V] 2 y.ears..v
Respondent N0s–.6″-“8V’ are’*-minors
Represented by t}1ei1~:n.e>;t friend
Gt,”-gardian fati1e_rV’Ra1nakIishna
A y vvabant f4~2–‘years.
‘ “’10.
S’-agar__* ‘ y
S / 0 .Puttaswamy
_ Aged ‘a.Ij0ut 22 years
‘ . ”sa$f%’:tha
” E I) /0 Puttaswamy
___7Agecl about 20 years.
W.P.NO.1563/2010
W.P.NO.1563/2010
12. Sadhana
D / o Puttaswamy
Aged about 18 years.
Respondent Nos. 10 to 13 are minors
Represented by their next friend
Guardian father Puttaswamy
R-4 to 13 are residing at I _
Keremegaia Doddi Village ‘ ”
Koppa Hobli, Maddur Taluk.
13. The Manager
Vijaya Bank
Besagarahalli Branch ‘
Koppa Hobli, Mddur Taluk. * .”;;RESPONDENTS
This Writ Petition is filed-1~unCier and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying–to dee1_are’_ that the order dated
22.12.2009 passed by, the G_ivi1__ Judge Dvn}, Maddur produced
at Annexure–A a.]1oWitig.;_I.A.’No.:9 in..{)-.S.No”.’1/2008 is illegal and
quash the same”. ” 1.
This on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the Court made the._i’o11(Jw_i11g’:’–
‘ ‘GRDER
petitioneru/’Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1/2008 on the file
er._e:a§zi1″ Judgé’i{Srei1}n.}, at Maddur, Mandya District, is before this
Court.ni’aying’A–‘fo:rVgquashing the order dated 22.12.2009 passed on
4I.A.No.£)3V’~~SUit
schedule properties which are joint family properties.”arid./_btl1e’it_v
properties mentioned in the written statement.’are.:$eli’#acqVuired”.
property of the petitioner. He further
in the impugned order, has said ihaut there no frolmvthgae.
lands. In the suit for partition, the:re’«_pnoll ground for the
Respondents 1 to 3/plai1iti’i’fs’ ~-.._aVni’~application seeking
maintenance. The application. the Trial Court
erred in awarding — as against the
present petitionlefl t)l.10.2009. He submits
that the in awarding maintenance
to the respondents/
3.4;’ll1eA. Resp-ond’e1nts’ llto 8 are the wife and two minor
of K.HCH.lSateesha. It appears that K.C.Sathisha
died on lfsuicide. Thereafter, the Respondents 1 to
9′ VV”3/plaintiffs to Doddi village and filed a suit for partition
Aseparatei” possession of 5/ 16″” share in the suit schedule
A ‘prope1’ti6i§. The plaintiffs have described 58 immovable properties
‘A’ schedule and 49 items under ‘B’ schedule movable
W.P.NO.1S63/2010
properties for partition and separate possession. Since the
plaintiffs have no means and all the suit schedule propertie’s._,ar_e in
the hands of the defendants, the plaintiffs thought
maintenance pending disposal of the suit,’ p’_fherefo’re’,~:i_;.”1e'”plaintiffs .
filed I.A.No.IX under Section 151 of CBC
Rs.6,000/– per month. The application-_§’vas
Defendant No.1 and the Trial Cou’1fl?’gi;”«.;):’1-1gpprecjlation of material
placed on record, came ‘the plaintiffs are not
entitled for maintenance, but of Rs.2,500/v~
per month contention of the
learned counsel’, to the entitlement of
maintenance petitioner/ Defendant No.1
is concerned’,__there’ In so far as the quantum of
maintenance awardvedhy thed’l.’rial Court is concerned, there is no
I-V,.g1ieiIanVc*e{‘ lcontendedd «V with regard to the quantum of
mai.ntena1i1ce’»–an’d” has urged as unconciseable. Keeping in VIEW the
,,,,,_,,«,,immoVa.hle properties in the hands of the Defendant No.1, it
cannot be” said that the Defendant No.1 is not earning anything
from t1j._e4″‘A.’.mmovab1e properties. If the petitioner is willing to give
,, Share of the plaintiffs, he can d from the date when he
W.P.NO.1563/2010
delivers possession of the share of the plaintiffs, he would not be
liable to pay maintenance. The mere contention that the petitioner
has no objection for the plaintiffs to take their share l.1’I«.:JE:.l1′(:3V.’=SL1i'[
schedule properties, holds no water. With regard
maintenance is concerned, keeping in View that thePla_1ntiff No. ibis” .
aged about 31 years and plaintiffs 2 and :3eare’idanghte};$.aa,,gf’:\zighe
deceased K.C.Sathisha, aged aboi:it”8,V.years. and 67Vyears_Han..i:1
are studying in school, the quanturnof niainteiiance awarded by
the Trial Court cannot be ;1″1i”gher»l.Asidge. i see no good
ground to interfere with thevinipligned order on any count.
dismissed. ” l
W
“§o§%§