High Court Karnataka High Court

P V Rama W/O S Prabhu vs S Prabhu S/O K V Sathya Murthy on 25 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
P V Rama W/O S Prabhu vs S Prabhu S/O K V Sathya Murthy on 25 August, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao H.Billappa
 

IN THE HIGH comm' op' KARNATAKA, BAN{:é;Lc}m§' '  *  H

DATED THIS THE 25?}: DAY (3F°54UGU"ST,.; 42 OC9_  '  

PRESENT

THE H0N'BLE MR. JUsTI€{15:~~..;;.sR'EEp'HA§:  

THE H<3;wLE $aiR_,_'Ju§$:§;E':'}£;_Bj:;LAPPA

_'£Vi..F.A. grid'  u,__:_4&)3.' 2

BE'f'WEEN:--:_.  * M

Sm'. Pwvr [RAMA';  . % A
W/0.s:"PRABHfU_,  _
AGE; 29."YE.A--Rs,"  _ '  
R/O. No;-30,. 9THVC3}7<f<T)S€-;;_  
NR, c0Lc)i2!}Y,%% " " » 
8ANGAm0E'-- 1'9. _ 

 * {BY  §1%.:N.V.%.rJAN'}{:'N--'--.:;A1AH, ADVOCATE)

SR1 S'; PRAI:§EiIJ.j
3/ O';"«--K.V_,"$A'i"'HYA MURTHY,

 é QAGE9 37 YEARS,
   }"<:,«f(:}. CHEKKANNA COLONY,
 4 v.ALvm<:mTEsHwARA gx*m.,
" _ CEHENTAMANE,
' KQLAR DISTRICT.

APPELLANT

T  RESPONDENT

(BY Sm: G, SUSHEELA, BHARATH; NAGESH 5:.
~ KASTURI.A., DVOCATES}

the amount. R is the contentiee of the Wife that

of Rs.1000{}{)/ — was agreed towards the maintet1e_:inceV’eei” it

Wife and it did not pertain to the c1sj1fi”or4t1;_e-‘_tm:;m}

wife did not appear in MG No. 1543/E2§;(5:2,i.i’

was diemissed. The husbanéiigytifeiiedihthe. in
M. C. No’ 1 14 1/ 2002. The ,.-e§rideItr::e* I _petitieIzerf.k:us’eanci
is recerded. The Wife hate the petition.
The wife has 3:1t)t}E:t_ $11 basis of the
uncontested .5/ef’ itiliiesdeeree for divorce
is grantec¥..__7§’I}E;~ A5′

It ~i of the counsel for the

res§c:n,dent’V~t}1atv{ie*spEte gémtiof sufiicient eeportunity, it is

the wife who dlefeiiiltedii in conducting her case diligently.

«,_hand, the ceunsel for the appellant/wife

ef the petition filed 11/ S. 1348, she

_ ass1imedV.__’th:at”‘the petition in MC N0.1141[2002 has become

” 4’ ‘ «. Viizfinctouei

L4, Whatever may be the reason for the failure ef the

i in not conducting the case, it is evident that the decree

of divorce granted is technically an exparte decree. Since the

CV

dispute is a matrimcznial dispute involving manimoziiaj-«.g§_fid

maintenance rights, it is just and necessary .

oppofiunity should. be afibrded to t1;::_ wifg.’ 1:65 ”

case. in that View of the matter, impu.gned. deé1’eé”

aside, the matter is 1’ema::1(‘ied7to.__ ihe vfgar ffésh
disposal in accardaance with law to the

wife. The case shall be of’tl:u_’ce months.

. 3 ‘ V ‘ax,

_§.i§;.xwV::s..a

{}ps*