High Court Karnataka High Court

Anand Melvin Menezes vs Mrs Reshma Pauline Menezes on 6 December, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Anand Melvin Menezes vs Mrs Reshma Pauline Menezes on 6 December, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
IN THE HIGH counr OF KARNATAKA AT BANeALor<E--,T

DATED was THE 6"' my OF' DECEMBER,_E;0iO.j'~'..'..:   

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN'sH_AP§T?\?§A~$CijL§§xR.7.j

wan PETITION NO';2.5Zi".?96/2.01.0  
BETWEEN:  .' 

Ananci Meivin Menezes
Aged 38 years V
S/o.late Paui MVen:ez_es ;'  _  - 
R/at.Apartmen'_'t      _ 

Mantri S{3i6Fudo"r2..  " 3 ._ "   .

46/2, Geddivaehaillfl _

Hennurvemaén 'R_oaCi1::;,  ~ _'   
Banga|:Qre~7_7"7![_.. H   . .. PETITIONER

(By Sri viggy-k%rish.fi'aAfB?§a;;:'A<:i=v.,)

AND;w

V. ,.e--;v1ré;'Res?h'mé..Pau|ine"'iV3«enezes
 W/o,An.avnd'me~!vin Menezes
*-Aged 32fl,4,ears-.VV_e..

R/at-.~i\Jo.28.7fD,f=Frepat
2""-Qrossg nasndi Durg Road

  Jayamnayhai Extn, Benson Town
 "*?33ajngaIo,re--46 .. RESPONDENT

* : -(By éra C.V.Sudhindra, Adv.,)

ix.)

This writ petition is fiied under Articles 226 and 3227
of the Constitution of indie, praying to quasiiv._tii.e

impugned order dated 2.7.2010 passed
Additional 3udge, Family Court, Bant;i.a’lo,i’:e.V:”n-bailiff V’ _V
MC.No.2106/2006 (At Annexure-E_)»….an4d rej’et:t–rr’.j:..A;ri\i’_o..V2»_

filed by the respondent, etc.

This writ petition coming ed for ‘preiimiiiairyiih.eVari_.ng,h

this day the Court made the fo|Io’wing;–

By the jj–vt’he”‘C0urt below has
awarded to the respondent
from .2i’5.9′..Z0rU6=’ftfif*E\(l’a*reii’,. 2007 and t5,000/- to the

minor chil”d.._4by_ Petitioner is the husband

.—.,.,_Of 2réSDOnid§’nt,_, ____ __They have got a child by name

have arisen between the parties and

corisequeyritiyririthey are Eiving apart.

AT”‘-..yDuring the pendency of the matter before the

Court below, the respondent flied a memo before the

W

Court below in the month of March, 2007 mentioning

therein that she will not claim maintenance from’~»t_’i’iat._

month onwards. In view of the same, the ”

has awarded the maintenance of”?’10,0QQ/–_;.tifii’i:’i_«iarcih,V7,

2007 from 25.9.2006 (date of filing lofplthe »pei;iA’tio’~n};i’i*zlv'”

favour of the respondent here’i’n:f» “i”he”::ame’-icalnénot be
said to be on the .i_ln~«.asmuc’h was the
petitioner is getting saAla.I.”c$l,’/_ ‘l~ajs.’–Von February,

2010. He net per month.

of the petitioner

mentioned, 4′ isulpiragff th’e”””amount of maintenance

V awa’ri;:ie’di..to the respondent for a iimited period as also

theearn’oun.t””avwarcied to the minor child, cannot be

higher side.

Hence, no grounds to interfere with ____the

impugned order. Petition fails and sarnc”2ef”–«.:i’S.,’

dism issed .


  Iaxprgg  A

=acCk/nkgv ....    1]