High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Puttamma @ Paddamma W/O Sri D … vs Sri D Thippeswamy S/O Dasappa on 10 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Puttamma @ Paddamma W/O Sri D … vs Sri D Thippeswamy S/O Dasappa on 10 July, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
-1-

IN THE Hm:-4 coum or KARNATAKA AT BAN6ALOfR_f  _

wrreb THIS me 10*" may or JUL'! ff    é '

BEFORE 

me HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MQHAN$;HvANTA§QA§OUb;§§' A k

gnxmmg P57111024 %No.k3453.*2k§x3e 
Between: V A   A   V
1. Smt. Puttamma V    '
@ Paddamma A " " '

VJ/oD.Thippes\v&an:3::-D'    
Agacl about  'V '   

2. Kum. Anitfliié iivgiiari  
Die D. 'i'5hippeswa;*§;y._  "  
Aged    

Both R/a Ciiiifilfiagufa.
Hoialkere Taluk  ' ~ * V

 Ghitraipgiurga I}is1:ri'c:*:..__ _ ..Petitione:r9.

I iBy:E'xt12t.H:Na1§:ii.'lgiikatesh for Miss Kesvy 85 Ca, Adv. ,)

V V V ' 'Q. Thipfiweswfiifxy'  A

51,10 Dasappa 

' '  I '  A about 555" years
 J1_.1'niG:"'A§sistant
*0  fa§_Se(;tion, KPTCL

Kanipli; Hcaspet Taluk

K -.._I3'c':I1a:}y District. ..Rcspondent

V V  ' _  '(By 'Sri Jagadeesh Goad Patii, Adv.)

I 5"



, 2 ,
This Crimina¥ Petition is filed under Section.482VT'»._'Cr:P.C.
praying to set aside the order dated 19-4-2006 passed by Edd}, 
F'I'C., Chitradurga in Cr}. RP. No.16/2006 by enhancing'-the _aIuéQuz1t

of maintenance awarded by the I Add}. JMFYIL, €11',

Crl.Misc. No.58/2004 on 13-14006 from the datgpf  '
This Criminal Petition coming on  6:-dam' thés  the 
made the foilmving :      " "  3 A

Petitioners herein are    d.. s'.§11gi1tt:r of
respondent. They ._   Petition

No.69] 2004 praying for of Rs.3,000/ ~

and Rs.2,000!’-‘ Igonghf The trial Court

awardezd” per Immth to the 13*
pcfitioaiézr afifid ‘Rvjsfi _’m.o11th to the 2″” petitioner from

the date figs: ” .’:The order of the trial Court was

qu¢s;t§i;;¥1éd by herein before the Sessions Court

Petition No.15/2606. On hearing, the

Petition was dismissed. Questioning both

V –V the petition is filed.

H * Smt.Na}ini Venkatfish, lmmed counsel appearing for

. jjéztitioners on taking me through the material 011 record,

” mpfayed for enhancement of amount of maintenance. During

the course of arguments, she fairly submitted that in case if the

V

-3-

respondent is ordered to pay the maintenance pf

petiticm, the ends ofjustiee will be met.

-4.The respondent is about -ee»I4ie is ‘

Junior Assistant in KEB. The ‘ sale;

respondent is Re.12.127/~. i:-flfgettriztzg net
samxy of Rs.6,781/~. rsggving tetéjiiyyef the facts
and circumstances, in the amount of
maintenance Vat Rs.1,5D0/– and
Re.1.250/- in ‘the petitioners 1 and 2 is
just _v nnfviiiéjvseezzsiciexed opinion, the Ceurt
below ehonln eniiaintenanoe from the date of

petition, {here is nothing on record to Show

‘~ working during the pendency of the

‘henreizsfinnship between the parties is not in dispute.

Theflreibre; of the Courts below are liable to be j

‘.Vmodiafiedie3.3ife:hly to the said extent. Aeecrrdingly, the fi)1k:xwi11g

‘ .. f«:31A’der.. is made :

The respondent is directed to pay the maintenance ef

L’Rs.1,5oo/- and Rs.1,250f– per month respectively to

if

-4-

pefitioncrs 1 and 2 fmin the date of petition. fl§I’l6

Courts belaw are modified accordingly.

‘bk?’