High Court Karnataka High Court

H T Shanmukha vs Smt E Sridevi on 28 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
H T Shanmukha vs Smt E Sridevi on 28 October, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR'E--.»j

DATED THIS THE 28"' DAY OF OCTOBER,__23fl1Q'VV':l. _ :   

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAVMASJ:§§_A£~§TA!x§A~?;'§CU'[§:AR.

wan Pggrrrxom NO}3_20.49/;2'Oi'Q  
BETWEEN:  L' 

H.T.Shanmukha

S/o.iate Thimmappa
Aged 37 years  , :   . 
":;r5'Crd3ss Road"  

R/o.APMC, Quairte
Haiipete, Kad'u'r'f_F(}s_A:.:f3 " .:   ..  .
Chikamangakur-::_D§.st.  »   ' .."PETITIONER

(By sr;;'H.N.'vewé5~,¢,aqF£§r,  ,) V
AND: 'A V V  VT  M
1. Smt,.E.Sf'i'deX/I V _ 

W.}.{o. H~.T.Shat'.~--mukhé:
Aqeci-,"L27"~--yea rs V A

.' '=R7e._No..4_28.._.v 3" Cross,
  V7"'T.M'e._Ean »Ro[ac}3 'H' B!ock,
_ '-Rama !<'r«i.,shn_'a " N a g a r

' W/S0r€*'2?3AT'L

 Baiafiitbvha Shanmukha
.. ,D/o.H.T.Shanmukha

 _ Aged 6 years
 R-,"o.No.428, 3" Cross



7"" Main Road, 'H' Biock,
Ramakrishna Nagar
Mysore--23

Since minor rep.by her
Mother Srnt.E.Sridevi,

The 15' respondent .. RESPONDEE'i-\J:"i"E'.&jV'ri.: 

This writ petition is fiied y.under’~Arti_cies 22_S”an’d

of the Constitution of India, praying to. quash’V_th.e..i,nte_r%irn
order dated 6.8.2010 vide An’vnyexure–E,~–._pa.ss.ed”gby” the
Court of the jiudge, Family Court at iiiysore’ on I.A.iNo.1 in
C.Misc.No.15/O9, with costs ofrthis’ writ”petition’,”etc.

This writ petition Corning’:’for.:_p–reiirn_i_nary hearing,
this day the Court’–njadeAi:h’e-foliowing:4; «V

Riespondyentgiiii’os”;’1V,AV’and”2-are the wife and minor

daughter it of’ respectively. The

re|ati_enship*bietweeri. the parties is not in dispute.

..”‘SinVC’e:’ i..the”i*.._petitiVoher neglected to maintain the

have fiied petition under Section

of..__v’CrA..1’P.iC. claiming maintenance. During the

._inte__rreg*num, interim maintenance was prayed. After

‘ie’ari:ng, the Court below has awarded the interim

iv

maintenance of ?2,S00/~ in favour of the first

respondent and €1,500/– in favour of the

respondent.

2. This Court does not find u’e_rror*-

impugned order, inasmuch afsathe amount ivavv’ard_VeVd..3to%

the respondents cannot be 3ys.axijd:__t’o,_VgAbe’fuinrleasbnable
under the facts and case. As
could be seen..vf.r:c;>:i*-.<.a_ lftnnfexure-D, the
gross salarsi/ffxéfr the month of
March,:vi'20'l*i5A:':/iyis"a'nd~"Vtake–home salary is
%1o,o2si/.–k{ vTiheipik§éj§oirid_i'arespondent is aged about six

years and siiud:yiVn.g– in'v.th'e First standard at Mysore. In

=7:V'"p.aragAraiph–13A ofivvthev impugned order it is ciearly

first respondent–wife though was

_ serving i.__virn-fierfiiance Company, has left the job since

JJ'anfuary"*';2.01G. She is no ionger in service. In view of

'above, the amount of '$32,500/~ and i"1,500/-

H

_.-4m

awarded by the Court beiow to respondents 1 and 2

respectiveiy, cannot be said to be on the higher

Hence, no interference is caiied for. _.\Mrvi4t=pef.itiora3

faiis and accordingiy same is disnéissedl» " _ " é