IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
BEFORE "
THE HONBLE Mr.JUsT1eE AJIT J.G'Ey}_:i\Et}£§i.dI:,"i"' A'
WRIT PETITION No.3431S_)J6F'20Ci9(GM}'ACjx*-T.
BETWEEN:
Muhammed.P.Baig,
S/0 Pakeer Sahab, __
Aged about 65 years,» ,_
R/a Banu Building, " T
Kushalnagar Extension, " . _ V =
Sakaleshpura, ;S'akies}1'§)iira;TaiL£}<_,.
Hassan District. 'j;,.- 'V . '= . PETITIONER
(Srin C S:_'mt.G-iTij'é1shankar, Advs}
AND:
1. Oj:ie.r1_t.a1 uI"r1surai1r1ce' Ce. Ltd,
Mangalore Bfan.C»h.,v
_ 'Ba1i;"E\{i:1t'tA::1t, K.S.Rao,
A ' 'Mar1ga1Q'ite;'Rep. by
-.E3ra;:i.e1a_iVfzin3;ger.
2. State' of Mysore,
Puttuif Branch, Puttur.
= .. Dakshina Kannada District.
" _ Rep. by Manager. ...RESPONDENTS
This Writ petitiori. is filed under Articles 226 and 227
T “‘Uf the Canstitution of India prayizig to direct the R2 State
ix.)
Bank of Mysore, Putur Branch, Puttur. Dakshina
Kannada District to release the amount in fixed»,/’term
deposit. bearing No.2373/09 dated 2l.08_f20_09″,’ of
Rs.].,5O,000/W with accrued interest. in the””‘intere5st.
equity and justice by setting aside t.hej”‘order’e-it’dated:’_
26.10.2009 passed in MVC No.l’l35/02—…l$ii£\CT .Puttur
District Judge, Puttur Vide Anne.\Li’re~.A. _.
This writ petition coming or1;_fo-ripprelirninarfz
this day, the Court made the followin,_gi V ‘ ” * 1 e
“W0 R
The petitioner claim petition was
lodged. A sum of lvlvas awarded as
eompensatiorlis awardllarnotint was released to
the petiti_onerV.:l”‘ / W was kept in fixed
deposit…’ -. entitled to draw interest.
Petitioner”‘a_r_n”akels_ ” application for withdrawal of the
entire; lanzouilt ground that he has to perform the
*rna’rriag_e’oi’..h’is___daughter. The invit.ation card is also made
a’v.ai”lablle.u–.7’pj-1 learned Member of the Tribunal has
rejeet.ed’ the application. Hence this writ. petitiozi.
Mrfiowrisharikar, learned counsel appearing for
0′ the petitioner stibrnits that the petitioner has al1′
‘ _ in part.
performed the marriage 0f 5 sons and 6 de1i;_ght.ers.
Hence, he requires the amount.
3. I am not impressed. If the petit4i0nei’j’e.’an.V’pefiorni
the marriage of 11 children it would I1eeess–a–rii§J :”1:1.ea._n thaij
he has substantial funds. Heriee, I~arn”of Athe “that
notwithstanding the faei’ th’at«–_frhe rna’rri.a.ge’V:iisigfixed .301′: T’.’l’t’i’
December 2009, the question_d:V”0f:_re1easi:{1gdihe amount in
favour of the petitionei”.Adoes’;n4off arise. But however,
having regard to Vthe1-expefise’s._”whieh.V are required to be
incurred pairerztis thewrnarriage of their daughter,
I am of ‘The’ sum of Rs.50,000/– in the
circumstances eanhe direoted to be released.
_{ Hence, ti:-.evfo1Io\%ring order is passed:
(I.-.}’>Pe’tition ismallowed in part. The application is so
(2) The Tribunal shali release a sum of Rs.50.000/~
towards the marriage expenses of the petit_it31}er’s
daughter.
(3]The petitioner is ‘requirer1» to
how the amount is spen:t_andaarise.thAe”phOtogrAaf;§h
of the marriage.
Petition stands disposed_r5t”..ac:~e’Qrding]§f7′ vi?
AI/W