High Court Karnataka High Court

Shri P Santhosh Kumar vs Smt M Vani on 8 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shri P Santhosh Kumar vs Smt M Vani on 8 November, 2010
Author: N.Kumar And Nagaraj
 Smt.M"V2'iIri_1i,A   
 "Dd/Vo.1ate' Mi1niyan,Ti__ 
   /O.Sri Kr'i4shn_a' Mtirthy,
_ Aged about 29 years,

 B:fang'aIQrVe>-- 560 026. .. Respondent
Vt   WA. is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka

 Act, 1961, praying to set aside the order
jgjasscid in W.P.No.948/2010 dated 13.1.2010. .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 
DATED THIS THE am DAY OF N0VEMI3fER.:  
THE HON'BLE MR.    A
THE HONBLE ME. NAGAERAJ
W.A. NE";'1V:698j2CJV]»C$":[GMV: EC)
BETWEEN T '.   =   . 

SriPSanthQs};"K_L1m5U'.    

S/0.D Pus.hpara§_,v..';'. ' _:    .

Aged about 3Q"yea1'=:~,~  A' V

R/a.Munip"pa_ 'LéL3zp,ut;.§'  ' '

N0.2,. R1'ng'R0;1d,   _

Nagashetiy Halli.'-»  * _

Bangalore '-'--560_ 094    ..Appei1ant.

(By Sri R R S.omaEhe1;ha'TaiHh,vAdv.)

R}'a.1'Jp.3€3.,__ Sampangiramanagar,

 



   _____ 
I   disputes the paternity of the child.
i3'e.rriily"'Court has not awarded maintenance to the

  However, on the aforesaid admitted fact, as the

if "wife has to live in a city like Bangalore, a minimum sum

7

This WA. coming on for orders this day, KUMAR J
delivered the following: 

JUDGMENT

This Writ Appeal is by the

the order of interim maintenance

to the wife in a petition for
material on record discloses”:i:_hatV he as
driver in HAL and drawing Rs.8,0o0/-
The case of the working in a
private aifterf in all, he was
earning’ _i2;=..20,000/–. Therefore, she

sought interim frnaintenance of Rs.l0,000/– for herself

It un..fo1-ttinate that in View of the said submission, the

Rs.4,000/– is required to maintain herself. The Trial

1″//

Court has awarded the said amount as

maintenance. Aggrieved by the same, the

preferred the Writ petition. Leva1″‘ne-dy diiluu

considering the order of the;__

dismissed the writ petition. “V-aggrieved. this’

Writ appeal is filed.

3. No materiai is ShOW that on
account of appellant, his
service.s..,,c’arr:£e ;:«1.:1-Z9! and he lost the
emp1oyme’nt.V under contractor and

admittedly eamfiiag a sum of Rs.8,000/– p.m. In

of the «matter, we do not find any merit in this

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

U 801/.

Iudgé

Bkm.