IN THE HIGH COUjRT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DAT£D THIS THE 30*" DAY or JUNE, atéogj
BEFORE
ms HOWBLE MR. Jusmzs Asaexa; HIN§;+§IG: E35§L:~~..j:"'1v-- %
iflgs2fl$Efi$£J {"~u5 A %
EE3'_'AlE.EI:!.'.
sum MOHD ASLAM oAoAs§;5é ma91%
AGE: 35 YEARS, % '.
occ:
RIO CIGEAA. _MAUL.-LAV§CCB«.!§Q_59 %
CHAWATGALLI,' M ' -~
BELGAUM, ' .
(av sa:v1jmIAgs;'fEL1; Abv.)
Lswriz.%TAs:m§sé:;+p%%AsLAM aepm
AGE:24, '
occ;%%s4ous5 tam,
~ ~. i:' «_KHADDA, =
% SELrCi'A.iJM.
PETITIGNER
RESPONDENT
THIS RPFC IS FXLED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY
X Vcouarrs ACT 1934, AGAINST ‘ms 09.953 DATED 2715/2009 IN
CRLMISC. 448/ZQD7 PASSED BY THE JUDGE FAMILY CQURT,
BELGAUM. PARTLY ALLQMNG THE PE’l’IT!ON UNDER~sffEc?:oN
125 OF CR.P.C. AND E’E”C., 5 .
“nus vsrmcm comma on FQR Aamxssich hm,
THE comm” MADE THE FOLLOWING: é
This petition is directed agalnst ‘tl*p.é-“:srclerf.,’..’;«;lz=’*..tf’e<'1 2";r'.hc5;ex9+
passed by the Family Court, ln Crlrhmél filséllanmus
No.448/0?. 5
2. The background “facts, th’ef_c§fsg in a nutshell are
that the:v’Vth5ffihal;ia ‘..fiétvll:lcner ané the respondent
was soleriinlfied Van their wedlock, a female child is
born. _The péiftiianer aA’hdV””hlls parents were annoyed with the
dgliveflha “” fail female child, that the a physically
Vl*:a_:_n’cl’l§_:”ap;§’e:_c;léhzlhfpentally retarded cane. They llltreated her and
thrésflherv.9£iV§}__a? the matrlmonlal home. As the respondentvg
. .l_l’_;l.4l4_’1;rnpteen~ hllmber at rmuests to take her back did not precluce
result, she filed Cr!’ Misc. l’~l9.448/G’? lnvakinq
V’ 125 of the Code hf Criminal Procedure claiming
_4flFnaintenance of Rs,3,080/- per month. The Family Court
awarded maintenance cf Rshéhfiég/~ per month from the date 91′
3
the petition. It is this order, which is being assa’i!’:edfiVn}i*this
petition.
3, Sr: Vitthai 5. Ten, t!1e_J,t!e_a_rne;i””ct*,.§}ir_:s”e%;1′: for
petitiener submits that the petitioner:-is x:=_}_’efiiarAé.-.!..i_.’ t§j:’i§é%§afité::t_the
respondent, provided she rejei’éis'<–.h.im. fu_rt§;1::éi5ti._s.ta,t;tn'itsVthéjt
he Is also Iccking "after the maje_t§ta§§y~.._g'etzifded _chvtid spending
enormous amounts on hér.ti':ed§:aE1:.»:§i'e.;L'vvv is his emphatic case
that it is the respendent,-Vvéscgt lexft':'»t_h%é"':fi:aitrifi1oniai home. He
denla the**'a!§§g;'étitit:VV.thjgt-.v't&§e«-ggfitioner has neglected the
respondéiat. " 4' ' t =
4. ‘ma. subfi§!s3t!’6’n§;’ ‘bf the {earned Counsel have
receévefi my jé’Vnxvi_9’u’s’ ct$’::é§deratlon. The petitiener has be-an
:”:’,_v.r9£1a1r3§iri’e{. tiie évtprickétééw. The Matrimonlai Caurt has formed
tha.VVVc;ojtisid§¢:rg§fiVV\?:-strtév that his income can be taken as Rs.?,0O6;’-
per tn-anthv; ‘ ititénnot be found to be at fauft for arriving at this
‘ ” ffifitgrg. éefiending on the earning of the petitioner, requirements
A §f’–..ti2e fiitetstienar, status of the parties and the present cast of
“j the Matrtmania! Couggfgs awarded the maintenance of
4
Rs.1,.0o0,l- per menth tea the respondent. As this Court finds this
erder to be fair and balanced, no interference is warrgnk-§;i.~
5. However, If the petitioner takes the respqnfiaajt’ ~-!5_5VC§( tO
the matrimonial home, it is made clear that hi$~ [§abi§§t9″1to §§y
the monthty maintenance of Rs.1,O00!-Wceases. .;« ‘«
6. In the result, the % petiii’9n:1l.Ais”‘disboiéefi ”
order as to costs.
= ”