High Court Karnataka High Court

Ravikumar vs Mahadevi on 24 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Ravikumar vs Mahadevi on 24 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
 

Age: 34 yea1'Sr.  D35??? in f3ofi1me1t:ia1 Tax Department
Rfe. -.!ad¥3av.B".!.i!di;-mg. E.i;nds=_v'a,gi_ Qhawl

 ' '

nuugii.
(By    'E\@:V.?;'[4'l.3.':ll1Il1lI', Advocate)

9' '.'.*','_e';«..R.-r.-.-.'il:'.1'.:*..-a-.1' !€.a3j£-.g-L
A  about 32 years
 .:'iifi~.":'vi.'\r'.n':'ix-assiir
D'.Rj._T:'Banghun1agar, Dandeii
e.__'T&1.1::k: Haliyal.

 AA 2. x '=§§'.usum

Q19. Ravflmmar Kaljagi
Age: 3 years, since minor in age
Dan 1": 'hp-r .

l.'.\aP1JI IIJ vII'ol'¥

next friend mother] respondent No.1  Respondents

(By Sri Vigneshwar S.Shastri, Advocate)

I-ii

5.
3
5-

2

Thin Criminal an. n _. med under awt$=..’é_ 1-‘:8’2_’
praying to set aside the order dated 17.07.2004. . paeeecie» by *
Seesians Jadfi, Uta”-“a Kannada. Ka.”war, in C:-‘!:R;’P,N’e.9fi,’2002.V
and order dated 1 .2002, ser.l””i’3:,rthe’ JMFC, ‘ Deindeliin

“L “‘ faueafietfi. 1; _ * V ‘

Cfi.Mi§c’:.Petin fl re .33

This petitinn ‘*i”n”g ‘ “”

made the following:

The petitioner’ I-respondent and

__:1a._.. ,1-‘ I1-;ee};9nde,e,t,..T:i1e.peiieioneriiefueed and neglected

-~*-“”*”– i–=s;-~'”=.d-=~’-*=V- 1′ & ‘2…_’!’hemfem, I-zeewndent fer

herseif and dnV;behé:'” .9???-xesibongient flied a jgiefifin “under

. negiected to 1eepo–d'”us 1 65 2,

1” . in not liable to pay maintenance.

is

.. …4.a..r.I1ed. irinl J1 are -. __1:.np1e<_:iat:ion of evidence, in

-“‘-‘-:”*”- “”‘””_'””” ‘”‘”‘ against w.£%ner, has held I-

Iesponcient had iawfui cause to withdraw finnl ihe company

of peiitioner and accepted evidence of’ I-respondent that she
fl _ J}
. =

U3

and having Iegani to amount j.fo::fj of ‘

mespondents 1 as 2, awarded tgrv-ttetojilonflieoto e

as 2 at the rate of Rs.1.O00[“VL’uéer molitlt lR5$2§.E”‘;~t5O/- pert
month, respectively. ‘gtfantt A niointenance,
petitioner filed C11Iul11al’ No.98/2002.
Aggrieved by respondents 1 8:. 2

had §§fifion No.106/ 2002. The

.ra.”nfit9.es;§i.1.1_’:”iJud.«,;,’-,n of evidence, has
uxnoitigs b” learr-…;.-d tria} Judge. The
learned Sessions ._ Judgetthas ileici quantum of maiflteflan”

__by Magistrate is appropriate to salary of

amount required for maintenance of

.’..Ii3:§p(.)VIit”«1t§:;1t$§VV1$ & 2.

V’ ” orders of Courts below. ‘0

z I have heald iearned Counsel for parties afld

I5

I “}”k_-1;/\-«”‘—tr/”—‘– – —‘

3. The learned trial Judge on appIeciafion~~~ai

zu-~–._

T_[I__,1″I_3 narl1’_,1_:1a_’1y View of the fact, lgxeayenélezit i wag V

t1’mw’n eat 1:” %*.i%:1er …,I.n. “is home. h.._Lis– the
eonteniion of petitioner, ‘hit i–r*’*;§””–‘_cl”nt ” ‘**’*’*’*’«”‘*”‘”‘*

fimn the company of petitioner;::i#vithoi1t’*
the relevant time, 13e’iixtione1*mW.ae i as driver in
Commercial Tax salmy of
Rs.7,000/– eonaiderixlg
salary of to amount required for
awarded maintenance at.

-; 4′ .1″ her” mouth to I-respondent and

L’. I’ _.

Rs.5G{},’->._¢pe3r 1′-.ser….’1 .. -:eswnd..nt The 1_J.=.I___ed .__.a_’_o__s

.v_BiidgeiA’ an Iefippieciafion of e’vid”‘c’ um: uuufirnieii tue

‘ ieained Magistrate.

it V. by Courts beiow. Aocoldingiy, erinmzai ”

dismissed. This Court by order dated 04.01.2065 h

‘w,7~i do ‘rt. find an” reawna ts i’.}.*'”‘r”I!”; with the _”1_.rs

nu»; Lu -n—. .. _

_..E_ __I

44…. .:

I111]. J.

S
:1′.

I

E.

directed petitioner to deposit a sum of Ra.5,0()0]– as

n T -4
w-wv-r9-*=’w

LII

Ia.I.l..I.Il.fI.

litigafiefl own-= ,..,p.:11-.;

as iitigafirm expenses,

as costs of this petition.

E.