Sri Basavarajaiah Uppalli W/O … vs Smt S Shashikala W/O … on 16 July, 2009

$1 -
IN THE HIGH czoum op KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED was THE 16% DAY 01? JULY 200$'---.T
BEFORE   .
mg HON'BLE MRJUSTECEE SUBH§S?%   H
camxmax. PII3'£'ITIOvl§l'AAi\I{J'.15§3'l      
BETWEEN:  i   T   H?

SR1. BASAVARAJAiAH UPPALLI  

S/O LATE SEE. SEDDARAMAEAH,  _ ' _

AGES ABOUT' 46 YEARS},  _ 

RIATUPPALLE, iNDAVAI€A"}?OS'_?', _  V' 

CHIKMAGALUR -- $7? 19? ~ _   1  .A 'A   PETITIONER

(By Sn'. M C JAYp;§<1RT};:;ALwg: V

AND: 1, ,   

1 szzms. "
/o BAsg\VA2AJA':;:x.:i, _
iaGE--[} A.Bo:_;fI?.,2::.TY}::.sgsa '

ABm s2£§::~:  A V 
_ Sm E-3':%$A'JA§3AJ'$EA':I
4 man Assign'? 2 mags,
'  Mmaa RE?'a¥...:a:s MQTHER AND NATURAL
;AN THEE RESPGNDENT N0. 2. Si-{ASHEKALA
~  B_C¥'E7E~i..5xRE RfA'§' N0 =2?'::~8/1, 2249 CROSS,
 * M';C_;,C;. "'E§'3¥:?3LOCfiK, NEAR GUND3
-  n§Am.._B'*a:VAPPA KALYANA MAMARA
i3;%Vfi;f§mGEi?E » 4  REiSPf§*fF'L.AINT' E35? {3RL;'MISCDNG.58f23(}8 GIN
 FILE 0?' THE J?-§FC~Ei, DKVANAGERE, FRED BY 'THE

 RESPONDENTS "s:;;s.12 OF THE PRCY§'EC1'£'§i3N 0? Wffiivififi mam
'   .::=0ME$':'I<:: VIOLENCE ACT, 2695 as PER ANNEXEJHEQ

THE }°€5T'E'"E'iON COMENG {EN FOR A§i'~»'i§SSi{}E'€ THIS SAY, THEE

CGUVE' MADE THE FOLLOWING:



0 R. B E R.
Petiiiener has chaiiengtzd the prczccedifigs. in

Crl.Misc.No.58/ 2008 on the flier 9f JMFCJI, Davangs-.,.fi?§g&'  A' 

2. Raspondént Fig.1 is thf: Wifehiqf  filéd» 1 

an application under Sécizion 12 of £21: P;§'0€-:§::ti«{;1:_1V 'czvf 'V§féiiien"1i!':)n1

Damcstic Violence: Act, 2005 Vééfixz-.3' fof'-sfierz) [Vffi'fém¥ic§V 

that, she has been iI}~t1'eated by  has not
been provided with the    fiancfits and
other aiiegations, based   Magistrate has
taken cogniza11c§l   .§§i1#;:fi{i.6:1$;i« In pursuance of the

Summons, tim  '§p}$§33f6(i before the iearneé

3, _vi£am4"'sr1_VVGo%:n$ci Véisppsaring fbr the petitioner submits

 "*Ehat§  :_A.t2.1l(:gg.a'£:i<):1'S' V'i':t1a¥;it:: in the ccmplajnt are prim in iiima

 §:¥§'Iff3I'"$ "i::£to-"force of the Act. The compiaint itself is not

maiiztséiizatgié: also submitted that, the pvatitioner had fileé a

 4' 'pgfifion 'filgéfil; Section 9 01" the Hindu Marriage fisci: fez' resfimtion

   £;;0i3.j'm1gai  Resgzondent had filed an appfication undm"

 __' §§efi1'j.£n  125 0f the C:r.P.C. for maintenance. The aiiegaiion madfi

u iler appiicaiion under Sectiml Ififi {:12 P. C. is tha varbafim

repeated in tile cempiaint before the learned Magisfiate.



-3-

4-. The camplaint discloses that the respondem No.1 is
married to petitioner. It 3130 discloses that, out of the iiiawiage,

she has got a chiki and aftcr giving birth '(:3 'the

p€ti?:i0IlB1" has desaried her. She has aiifigfitd   

iii-treated by the pfifiifififltff thr0ughc:;'i:1£  Sh¢«.§i0e:$T,:i1k3fi.$a3V% that 7.

incident has taken placs only bgfore  iI1t(;».b'V1'§':;At*(':sS: €>f'Vt't'.i€*vQ5§Ct,

even tbsre am no aflegafioné.'    to 
considered by the }€a¥i{1§:{i   fade, the
aflegations mafia in the  (131138 of acticm for
filing an appfic§ti£3é1':.  Act. i find no
ground for    ' 
 and same is dismissed.

Sdl
'Judge 'si-

xi'

 .