High Court Karnataka High Court

Shiddalingayya vs Neelamma Falsely Claiming … on 21 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shiddalingayya vs Neelamma Falsely Claiming … on 21 January, 2010
Author: H.G.Ramesh
W? No. 60023/201 {}(GM~RES)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 218'? DAY op' JANUAR'.-C::'20Ai:U:ii   

BEFORE ~"~.A ' A
THE HON'BLE    
w.1>.   
Between:    

Siddalingayya H   1 
S/o Veerbhadrayya If-.ambaiiri"is.th "  .  »
Age: 32 years, Occ:"F»{{e'«:hariicg 8e~Agri¢L1_1t1_1_1je;
R/o Chinnmu1gjLmo1,  'V      .
Tq: I-Iirekerur, Dis:-:"'HaVeriD4'"--{fjv«. '   

____ H    .. " ' '' «-..._,,_.,fPETITIONER
(By Sri.F.\/'i?,Patil,   7
And 1 ii i i ii

Dleelammfa V  Z 

"Falisely Iclaiffiing 'herself be

W,-'Do'  Kambalimath
Age*eaI.S;~Qcézyflousehold

o Chifinamulgiiehd, T q: Hirekerur,

Dist: Hét'2reri..__"

 at Wo~me;n and Child Development
4'  "Sho_1*t. Stay Home
D ".__"Sri'.«.G.R.'"Desai Building
 Vi Near"¢_I.iP."'Rota1*y School

'iffriaverii, Dist: Haveri

 RESPONDENT

IQ

WP No. 60023/20I0(GM-RES)

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 85 227__ of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugne~Cl”‘~order
on LA. No.1 vide Anne-xure–E dated 04.02.2009 passed.:’by*=the

court of Additional Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and

Crl. Misc. No.24/2009.

This writ petition coming on foripreliminaryi thisx ‘

day, the Court made the fo1lowing:– p A.
o R D*E__.R

Heard. This writ against the

judgment dated 02/12 passed by the

Sessions Court, Haveriyssinii.::Cr1AV.__Iilov74;:’7f’2i009. By the

impugned:iiudgrrienftiiiei Sessions judge has

dismissed the ‘appeal’ ith.e””petitioner herein by confirming

the orderdatedil(Annexure–E) passed by Court of

~__CiVilVHHdudge(Jr.Dn.) and JMF C, Haveri,

to pay Rs.l,O00/- to the respondent

itowards”-.ma_inteif1ance’during the pendency of the case. The

maintenance was granted by the trial court in

e;;eri:.is’e”of the power conferred on it under Section 23(2) of

‘t.?ie”‘Proteetion of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3

J’

WP No. 60023/2010(GM–RES)

The appellate court on a proper consideration of the matter

has prima facie found that the respondent herein

of the petitioner and that the petitioner

domestic violence. The aforesaid gsrixnap facieéifindingsj. are ‘

based on consideration of the mater’ia1i’–on reo’o,rd~._ I; firiddrro

legai infirmity in the impugned orders to w.arrar_it interference’

under the extraordinary jgirisdfiéitiori under
Arfides 226 &;227 ofthe cgfisfiffiuéfibqfjndur The wwfi
petition is .. if

Petition i. i

Sd/’~
“$3363