'11' (Respondent ~ Served)
*_Ilt_$_*_*__*__*__*
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF”N0VEZ§&1§_ERVI,26’1C’«. M’ V’
BEFORE
THE Ii0N’BLE MR. .IUsTIcI«;_ S.N;S,ATYA?€2§._RA%A§§i§A’E if .
WRIT PETITION No.2sd”27.;’_q_If 2d09u'(GM§Fc)
BETWEEN:
Sri.G.Kemparaju,
S/0 Late Gangadhalfl,
Aged 39 Years, . .
R/a C/0 A.s.Vy;kunta;’ah;__ , _
Kullajah Estate, 5,, _
Vrushabhavéilxi H.N”:1gar,” ?: ‘
KamakstIiKPa1ya. V ‘
4 560 £359.: ” .
(By sr:.G.s.B’a3D;;1gangad1a_ar; ficiv.)
HHHHH
VSm’LRoopVa. ‘_’ ° _
W / 0 Sri. u,
‘ Aged’ 28’EYea,rS;’j_
ER/at N0. 173, Hbysala Nagar,
_ . _ Pipeline, Magadi Main Road,
” V .SuI1kadakatte,
.VisV’Jan€*edam Post.
— 560 091.
.. PETITIONER.
. . RESPONDENT.
W
This Petition is filed under Articles 226
Constitution of India, praying to quash the”
21.07.2009 passed by the 11 Additional Farniiy: ‘–Co1x’,1-s.ft:,’j’. 00
Bangalore, in Criminal Miscellaneous ‘7/_
produced at Annexure – “D.”‘ -as the lsainetllis; v.i.:np1Jgnedi;
perverse and capricious, set asidethe maintenance
orders to the responden~.t_g passedlby the 11
Additional Faxnily –. in Criminal
Miscellaneous No.77/20Q8’,”‘d:é:’teVd and to dismiss
the I.A.II filed it
ThisvpvPetitiol_ri Hearing »– B
Group this;Vday,. the following:
0;KonnER
Petitioner hCv.’.’.€V_i11_. is respondent in Crirninal
it/IisceilianeotisiNo???/2008 pending on the file of 11 Additional
* AA VFa1nil3rl.Court.
” Brief faets leading to this petition are as follows:
0″-l5etitioner herein was legally wedded husband of
V respondent herein. Their marriage took place on 04.05.2001
Bangalore. Thereafter due to non–eompatii>iiity between
“K
3
them, petition came to be filed by petitioner herein in
M.C.No.369/2005 on the file of Family Court, Bangaisre. for
the relief of decree of divorce against the respo1fident«h:erein..
In the said proceedings, it appears noticejissiued
respondent is taken as duly served
exparte. An exparte decreee’0V_fo.r dis-soititiond” 0of…_rria.r1iage”:e.
between the petitioner respondent.._ca1t1e ~to_._be_Vfpassed on
27.07.2006.
3. The petitio:nei~–.isH_t»hat subsequently he got
married again’ anvtiifiiedi with his aged mother, his
younger bro0ther,.. w.ho;_ pursuing his education. The
:.,-petitioner v§rori§irig..__.a.sv a Village Accountant attached to
ijéévenue. of State Government. That he is drawing
°”.___Rs.6,’0o’o0/- :’which he is not in a position to maintain
.hirr1se1f, hiswife, mother and brother. When the matter stood
respondent, who is divorced wife of the petitioner, has
i ..f};ed__’,an application under Section 125 of Code of Cn’1’Iiinal
u”~.Pi*ocedure seeking interim maintenance in a sum of
“‘”‘\
Rs.5,000/– and also for litigation expenses in of
Rs.5,000/~. In the said petition, an applicatioifrisAaisoiiiledr
by her for interim maintenance, which” ca_rne’_4l’to_:h:eV:valloriredg ‘ T
order dated 21.07.2009, whereinilKt_lie_tV_A.
directed the petitioner herein to
her at the rate of Rs.2,0.(‘)0,_/fi– “disposal of
Criminal Miscellaneous also an order
for payment 03:’ expenses.
Petitioner being has come up in this
petition, for thei’1″easo1lis stated above.
4. In this the respondent — wife is duly
represe.nted by counsel. After hearing the
cotmsei-v_for petitioner, it is seen that the marriage
‘lit’=..__._betWeeri’l the’.V’Vie:’pe’titi0ner and respondent is undisputed.
ffherefore; there was relationship of husband and wife
4: the petitioner and respondent until
i ._1QI:qilCrl!%io.369/2005 was allowed by an order dated 27.07.2006
granting relief of decree of divorce annulling the marriage
“””\
case, it is just and proper that the petitioner has to
the respondent herein. The Court below
consideration all these aspects» “has i j
maintenance to respondent herein
which according to this Court and -. pro.1V)_’er:V”i,Vffherefore,V
this Court find that there’ is reason interfere
with the well reasoned order vAdth1e’_’..Court below on
I.A.II in ‘.i_”i\Eo_,V:’r”?:/2008 awarding
maintenance ‘ Per month. Hence
the Petition husband is dismissed,
without ‘order as 2
Sc!/:5