(BySré':4.?-4.R,.__vi*£é5..%L}£3NDA GQWDA,ADVOCATE)
3
IN HIGH am' <31? KARNATAKA AT BANGALDRE W.F.No.?8l-$ or am
1N THE 5-new COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
HATED TI-II8 ms 713 mm or xovEnlnER,..é{)§<a5g',;~ "
me HON'BLE MR. JUSTi{-3?' P6-'.!(.'P§ATi_L' 7_ % A
vmrr pmmox no.7s14 ore? 1 1% k
wnrr mm-moss no.1m9_53F was A 4 G2;u--z;r_:_1
$R£ r¢EELAKAr;T'A.sJo £§.ATE T'C2H!NNA'P£?'A
AGEBABOt.f?a?;--.}$EAR$._
R1ATN06;§,--.§THfBLOCK* _ .
xsarc: c;«_:AaIEr<s;~'s;f_TH'cjR%_ V.
wasow QARDEN, 3+»-mfrmizsmgxa
' _ %» PETITIONER
(By an : LAK}"2'=~H%§AN nag' Aavasmzj'
AND: " V' "
,. siuuvwxi W0, NEELAKANTA
_ V-:46 16TH Mam
seFE$ RQAD, asmsr swag
' *agN:3ALQR;--59_
' RESPONDENT
L are
Wm PET£TION :3 Page uuom ARTICLES 226 AND 227 as:
R”
4 CONST UTEON OF iNDiA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECC3RD$ OF
IN my: HIGH couasr 0:: KARNATAKA AT ” – »
C zwi W.?.NG.1 %é?wRE w’p’N”‘?3″ 0? 2998
2
IN T3113 HEGH CQUR3′ OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE ?«’.i’-‘.N<:», ?814 OF 2008
C 3' W. 'W.P.N0,l309.2G€)8
RE {N M.C.NO.373f2{ZO4 VIBE ANNEEQJRE A $0 FAR.-"AS
THE i.A.N{}.3 FILE9 BY THE RE$PONDENT AND DiRECTTTH{-I
PETITEONER TO PAY QUES OF RS.84,(l301– TC§NAR% THE ARRF;ARS"{}F"' .
MA.iNTENANCEi; QUASH THE WIPUGNED ORDER PAEESED. '~3'¥'$5
EXPETITION Momma DiREC'¥'iNG T0 RECOVER Rs.a4,e0c_;I. 324$ .
SALARY OF THE PETITSONER 'WEE ANMEXURE B.
BETWEEN:
SM’? SHYLAJA
W10 M’C.NEELAKANTA
AGEQ ABOi.3T- 2$ YEARS
WAT NO.’339w”39 ‘SETH MAN
SGFEET ROAD ¥IBLOCK
BANASHANKARE ESTAGE .. f _ _ M
BANGALORE so ~ — . * * % _
.pgT;.”r:oNER
(By Sri : M R NANJUND’-6′-xi G:QWD.%’*., AQV£’§3ATE~)”-._ ‘ V
AND : A
sat MC NEELAi<«?§NTA '
sso LAITE CR£NNAr'"?§?A_ ._
AGEDAB{}UT*40YE4*§Ré?'
Jwoa Asssszaur '
PF :~:.m4s1’ ‘ __
KSRTC: CENTRALVVDSVQSEON-. ” v ”
saawmsmsm BANGACQRE
RESPGNDENT
” {By an ~;’1L§iaK$z4w.«:s;ARAo’,V Ativdcara )
iitfi
‘ ‘ TIQRS ?E:’:TlTION £3 FILED UNDER ARHCLES 226 AND 227 GF
V’ THE CGNrST{‘.FUT5{}N OF INDIA PRAWNG TO EHRECT BY MOCEIFWNG
CJRDER DT§22;’£O.2OG7, PASSED IN M.C.NO.3?3I04, VIBE ANNA ON THE
~ Ffi.-E OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY CGURT, BANGALOEE A510
_ ” ‘ . “E’H,’§3 %fi§ét¢TENANCE FROM RS’2.00Gf– SUITABLY. ENHAFQCE
WEN PETITQNS COMENG ON FQR PRELHWNARY
4, … f~§§{§f§¥NG, ms mw, THE COURT MADE mg FOi.LGW£NG:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN ” ‘ “* = ‘
Cfwl %,’P’NQJ89g’2§€é.§.LL}R§ W.P.No.;’3£4(}F Z068
4
IN T1113 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT RAHGALORE W.P}3o.’?”8} 4 OF 2968
C x’ W. W.P.N().i8€)§?.2G{}3
Petitioner- wife in W.P.No.18fi9I2008 has sougbimj
modification of the ordar dated 22″” M
passed in M.c.No-37312m4, vide A;’gfnexure.»A..A’駧v fiz%e %
of the Principal Judge, Family %aangm.»e%
enhanae the maintenance frcm
2. Brief facts of tag casg% a}eu;a:, she’ fagteminer ..
husband had fiied 3 13 (ma) of
Hindu Marriages; “%!§§{§rce. When
the said 1c:v:%éideration, the
responderwin. in second
case – M.C.No.373i2004 under
Swctiofi Niéérriaga Act, seeking interim
“V’:13ainté5.éii1*at3§§e~v%.a.t fa’-‘ié _of Rs.10,0001– per month for
minor children, mnding dispose! of
V fhfi In suppart of the application, she has
‘ ” fiieci herzaffidavit stating that she is the legally wedded
of the petitioner and their marriage was solemnized
_4c:n-~’i§8*’ June 1994 at Bangaf e and out of ihe said
EN THE HEGH CTJURT CJF W.?.NOI?’8I 4 OF 2008
9
N THE HIGH COURT 0}? KAR3*€ATAi<IA AT BANGALORE W.P.}€u.?8£ 4 OT' 23.3 I
C K W' W.P'NO.l8G?¢2i}%
Scaciety and meet day ta day axpenses, incksdizwgffuei
mwicai, some: few and other house hold
Therefore, I am of the considered View ' V
maintenance awarded by the Famifjf
Rs.2,009/– per monflw is inadeqvate. %
is drawing a net saiary of 91'— the
Family Court ought to :}g;%fA:'ar§d refiéénabie
interim maintenancze on enabig chiidren
to meet the -zfiagf ' as feed,
ciothing, iézfinensm, etc. This
aspect ofithe. fqétjfnpieteiy over locked by
the Family arriving at the interim
.vm'aintei€lar'§:c:e figufé""cr§…£2Zs.2,000l~ per month.
' _ 'V fzaving regard to the facts and
ciréur§i~%3119tit:¢I$*;*L:r;:f':tl1€e case, taking into consideratinn, the
" 'h_ardship czaijséd to flze wife and two minor children fin
* " tfiefiay to day mates:-ssitiw and having regard to
V. _' théf"f1et_$aiary drawn by we petitioner – husband, in my
§: af:1s&jered view, it wauld be just and ramonable and
as: THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE war ' V
C : xv, W. 9.140' 2399. zocs 'N0' 78" 0? mg
£0
3% THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT }3.A}'€CALORE \X«'.P.}'J<3.'?8l 4 OF 20%
C ! Wk W.P£\§Q,l809.2GG8
also meet me ends 91' justice, if the interim mamtenafiiize
is enhanced by 2 sum of Rs.1,00Gl–, Lee. from
Rs.2,000I— (Rupees Twu Thousand Only) per ménmiaa
sum of Rs.3,000I- (Rupees Three_JThgusahd"t'}§%§£y§'*;r;¥§;f k
mmm, payable by husband to a n§:{' At.}ie'ii*"
children. _ ._ , V'
6. in the fight of the facts cirt§um$tasi;:év_dfVVVthe
case, thwe twa writ .petiti;:;-rmi.’$t’;a.w;;% of,
modifying the order passed on
mm in M.C.Nq.373l2Q£i4;:w. me interim
maintenance azintfiigft’ R3. totally comes
to a sum efzf ‘wpayatbla from 72″
November to wife as
interim fi1ainte.§iéfi*w:§2~.. without any default unfit
funher orders, mmgy by the Family Court
on flue jmaixn pending adjudicaticm before
In TFE H103 cam? 917 KARNAT – — –
MW’ {8%gG<b§Lom W.P.2'~Eo.?8l4OF 2&3