V' Smt.'§£ar:,iaua V.
IN THE HEGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2033 DAY OF JULY 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT J.GU1$z,;f;A;L*«j,,+~li E
WRIT PETITION NO.7768/2QO9(GM§.F§fi)'::: Q
BETWEEN :
Sri.N.S'uresh,
Aged aboui: 35 years,
S/o.SI'i.NaIayaI1agoWda,,. , ~
Residing at Bh11va1za1*1a11_i,"«--
Kaiwara Heblj, * 1' =
Ko}arDistric1:. _ V ' "«.'..PETI'{'IONER
(B3,; .3;
" Sri. Bfxadiiglath , Advs.)
AND;
Arm about28'srears,
V;/'o,,sri.,.sur~eshJf»:.,
R6€§i(ii£1g z§;i:~"¥f§Io,'2 ,
14$ Qm$s,Kim.1barahaIfi,
, --_Banga:e;;re, ...RESPONDENT
writ pefition is filed urfler AI"tiC}.€S 226 and
% ' 'V322-'? cf the Censtitution of India with a prayer to quash
Ythe arder on 28.02.2009 on LA. filed in
" " M.C.N(}.2591/200'? by The 2115 Additional Principai
Judge, Family Court, Bangaiore Yidé Annexnre 'G'.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the foliowing:
ORDER
The petitioner is the husband. k
the wife. They were married::’J
respondent-Wife has filed aep¢ution iu£:de; s§~=¢::o:§
the Hindu Marriage Act roreooigeasuguaoa ior AV.’::*§)Voi1ji1ga1 ii
Rights. In the said’ 35éSi>9né¢nt§wire has
filed an a?D1icg;tion the Hiluiu
V vvmiaintenanee for herseif
and Vfler” _ hpefitioner-husband filed
o¥ojec:tioI:1e’.i., directed the petitioner-
iizi Apa§%V”a’:3:;;i’n. of Rs.3,00G/~ to the respondent-
– to the child and an additional sum
of’ towards litigation expenses. The said
\,order is fiuesfioned in this writ petition.
” ‘j§etitio:1er~husba:1d submits that the petitioner does notlz
“:2. The ieamed counsel appearing for the
/
o///”K
have any income. He further submits that what is left
with him is oniy 10 guntas of land.
3. 1 have perused the impugned order. _
of the impugmed order discloses {fiat the
Wife has no income of her
position to maintain hersehf to
be noticed that the petition fer of
conjugal rights. not willing to
take back the4_e’wi_fe, ;it'”1sf’: him to
maintajii flit izotieed petitioner–husba}:1d
is an atfie’ boc1.. should make an effort to
earn gmd afid daughter.
_V __ far as the @’ant of majrztenanee is
of the View that a sum of Rs.3,{)0()/— to
‘the 3. sum of Rs. 1,000/– for the child towards
A ~firite:im maintenarlce does not appear to be excessive,
hétviog regard to the cost of living. Having regard to the
uu totality of the circumstances, I am of the View that the
L’?
imp:1g1ed oreier, awarding maintenance and a}se”–..t;he
litigation expenses does not warrant i11terfereng;§:;*
Pietition stands rqiected.
srs I":