DATED THIS THE 18? DAY OF SEPTEMBER, EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE PRESENT THE HON*BLE MR. JUSTICE §;,>S'REEDHARii':?A'0. _ A AND THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTECEA1;I'.'EILLAPPA:._ .5; M.F.A. N0. 18% 3v«.D§_.2o0S--- "A '3 M.F.A... 7-61.0E"-~.2»O05_ M.E.A. N0. 1873 OF 200;3m_;gA'_E.VV A I. :.:.-*a'' BE'I'WEEN:~ R. NAG-ARAAFHNA,' f A- w/Q._D'0.DD;A;;RA.NRA1AR--,. AGED 3S3J§'_EARS, _ ;<UMAR1 D. D /o.'D4oDDA CHANNAIAH, AGED 13 YE./M-?.S,"». __:S11\»€E MINQR, V ~ _ -REP, APPELLANT NO.1 ~ . 3 NA'rD'RAL._ GUARDIAN. MA-STE_R 'MADHU, 'S/0. DQDDA CHANNAIAI-I, '~.AGE'D -.11 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, S REP; BY APPELLANT NO.I " NATURAL GUARDEAN. ALL. ARE R/AT NO2982, 47" CROSS, II STAGE, %/ RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE --» 560 021. APPELLANTS, (BY SRI MR. KRISHNA MURTHY,ADvcOATES) " " ANDr SRI DODDA CHANNAIAH, , AGE: MAJOR, , WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER', KRISHNAIAI-INA» DODDI POST; V VYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, _ BANGALORE RURAL DI-STRICT'."" -. ' ' A .' "RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 VEERABHADRAIAH’ ‘8a;’.-\SS»OCIA.’I’ES,-ADVOCATES)
THIS MFA IS FILED”U,’S;-.j1–9(I;- 01″?’ THE F’.C. ACT,
AGAINST THE ‘;;,ORD’ER={ ‘”‘DT.” 23’;I..I.;o2 PASSED IN
O.S.NO. 150./’OO._ON..TI-IE..F.1LE_ OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BANGALORE», , ‘R;iARfI’IA: DECREEING THE SUIT
DIREC’I’I.N_(}_ ,_R.ESI_.=>ON=E.ENT HEREIN TO PAY
ENHANCED”?¢IAVINTENANCE AT THE RATE OF RS.1,000/–
PER MONTH AGAI:I~IST,,THE*c:LAIM OF RS. 1,500/– PM.
M.F’.A. NO”;~761_I 4
BETQEEN;
_wV,/ O; DODDAQH~.f\NNIAH,
AG*E_D ABO.I_JT.3~S YEARS,
‘VEANGALORE — 560021.
VA ff(BY E.SSKAY ASSOCIATES BY
NO2982, .4THACROSS,
2NI)”—STAGE’,*’RAJAJINAGAR,
APPELLANT
_ SR1»-1\.4T.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)
AND:–
DODDACHANNAIAH,
s /O. LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
HARIHARA VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
(BY SR1 M. VEERABHADRAIAH 85 A_s.s.OCIAT-Es; A’Dv.’;) ‘
REsPO.NIiENT i C’ i
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19v’OFf’I’}L;E. f?AM3LY ‘CICJ-1;I'”<?If
ACT AGAENST THE JUDG_IVIENT7.. AND DECRE'E DT.
25.1.2005 PASSED IN MC NO.1«3_27/20.00 ONi'THE~F..IVLE3 OF -. '
THE 1sT ADDL. PRL. JIJIDGE, 'FAMILY COURT,
BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U,k'S 13 (1)
(IA) AND (IB) OF THE I-;€iN_DU }.'a'1'ARl?_{1AGE_ ACT Ii'OR"DECREE
OF DIVORCE. x
These appeals are :On'i.i'fOri"'*hearing this day,
SREEDHAR .I_., delivered the~.fO.1iOWir1g:
u?£&PG$9NT
The 'Wife of the respondent have filed a
petition seeiking' mpa}.nte_nan"Ce. In the petition it is stated that
.__the..':pfii'st.?IIspe11an't{w–ife)i was subjected tO dowry harassment
crueplgtyivfipiiicomplaint was filed against the respondent in
Cr;NO;357.7fOr Committing the Offences punishable u/ s
',.498–i}i\,.. IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 Of the DP. Act.
is further stated that the respondent during the
I"9"enid;§ncy of the int bigamously married to one
Manjula and he has two children in the wedlock. The
respondent/husband contested the suit and denieidithe
allegations of cruelty. The respondent alleged _
appellant developed illicit intimacy with
because of illicit intimacy she deserted..tlfie
respondent.
The appellant has ‘i-fix The
respondent/ husband as and one
witness DW2. The any credible
evidence to illicit Ramaiah that
she has company of the
respon;v:lent.”‘ l l
husband ‘:_ti1as4..fil’ed..~~a petition seeking divorce on
the groundl”‘efpcrueltyA*–.ancIldesertion. The family court has
petitiorrand granted decree on the ground of
Cf”. ielty and .Vdese:.’tion. The wife is in appeal.
lvcvidence discloses that the Criminal complaint
given the wife against the husband for divorce for dowry
A ‘~?_*hAarassment and cruelty ended in acquittal. The wife in the
‘ cifiminal case has not deposed in support of her complaint.
The fact of giving false complaint itself amounts to cruelty.
Therefore the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. is
sound and proper.
The wife has not let in evidence to provethep _p f
marriage of husband with one fine i
cruelty is not established. It is evidenAce’itI1at=.’.ft’i1e”~.
petitioner who is a housewife and:Vresiding*-‘lthat
View, the grant of divorfi?’ o¥’1t\”ih.$=I’j§»ff§,..}’1d flCf)fV”desertion is
sound and proper. The in evidence that
she is not wil1ing’to despite his
offer. The 113005 is accordingly
dismissed. it ” -,1:
husband ‘:iiasv~.altho–ugh secured divorce is bound
to pay alimoiiy to.tl”:–.e Ad-eslefted wife. in so far as the daughter
~._is concernefi. she’Vis’—-cn’titled for maintenance until she gets
‘marrie_dv«..and”~the son is concerned, he is entitled until he
attains maj’oritj?.
‘ family court has granted maintenance at the rate
if ~ pm. to each of the appellants. The wife and
‘ children are in appeal seeking enhancement.
dz
The appellants have produced the latest salary
certificate of the respondent, which shows that he
monthly salary of Rs.2000O/– p.m. Keeping in the *
needs of the appellants, wet». édireotl ” ” Athevu
respondent] husband shall pay maitnteinancel’at”the
Rs.2000/~ pm. to each of the’a_p’p.ellant’s ;n*,,§l1’Vl.Rvs;,eoo0/%–
pm. from the date of theV____aip.pea_l_V till ~ The
respondent shall continueitto in respect of
first appellant through out respect of the
daughter of son, until
he attains No.18’73/2003 is
allowed.