IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALo_1_;E DATED TI-IIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, PRESENT T. 3 » THE HON'BLE MR. p.13. 1' AND I & N THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1OE- 1. WRIT APPEAL No.3s4u§;EOOV9 BETWEEN _ _ _ .. V' ARAVINDAKSHAN BALAKRISHNAN S/O, LATE 'EALAKRISHNA MENON, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARs~,, 4' ' ' R/AT No.44, MUNISWAMYAPPA 1;AYOU_T; " VIMANAPURA POST, ..MURUG«E;S__HPALYA_'BANGALORE-- 1 7 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER SR1 SHANTH._/TKUMAR BALAKRiSI:¥NA MENON, AGED ABOUT 32 YE'ARS;.R;'--.AT,NO,44, MUNIswAM3§APPA.LAyfO:}'r,, ' VIMANAPURAPGST, 'MURjuG'EsHF-ALYAM BANGALORE-1'7.__' " ' 2 A' . APPELLANT (By Sri R ANINNTHAOKRISHNA MURTHY & ASSOCIATES ) ?RlYA w/O ARAVINDAKSHAN BALAKRISHNAN. _ ABOUT :36 YEARS, 'R/Air '*.sH_NA'sHATH1", 'N.Q;'9C,.4T3EJ CROSS, AGS LAYOUT, NEW BEL 'ROAD. '1'ij-EiANOALORE 54. RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/ S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PE'I'ITION NO. 10824/2008 DATED 13/07/20C)9".-_ THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING UP FOR ORDERS "~ THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-- J U D G M E N T
[Delivered by P.D.Dinak£iran,” C.J
This writ appeal is filed against theerder
passed by the learned Singie Judgeiin V’
wherein the teamed Single:-“‘ ~eIudge’mhas; disijnissed”‘th”e petition
observing that as the eerder I.A.No.III in
M.C.No.640/2004 vyss.;passe»;d sees year 2008 and as
the petitioner has notffpaid jdvinterirri maintenance, granted eight
weeks time for VpayIn,ent.of’earrears. It was further observed that if
petitio§§1erS’*does Vlnotpay. the arrears the Famiiy Court is at
libertyito the defence of the petitioner and proceed in
p the matter,in’ao_Co_rdance with law.
_ Heard th.eiearned counsei appearing for the appellant.
e~Isinee”-the impugned order dated 03.04.2008 passed by 1 Add}.
S” Family Court, Bangalore is made on I.A.No.III in
,r'””.:'””7i~.V
,..,.».m-
M.C.No.640/2004 and that the learned Single Judge exercising the
writ jurisdiction conferred under Articles 226 and
Constitution of India, dismissed the petition, in _
opinion, no appeal would lie against the impugned”or{iers’~.iri«.View w. it
of the decision of the larger bench of
AND OTHERS Vs. MISS RENUKA»AN__1_) omens repsiga iLR:’.
2009 KAR. 1207, wherein, it is obserxredlgasfollowezflS ‘ “S
“14. As a result no would” lieunder Section 4 of
the Karnataka High Court ‘dgai_:istvAijge”_t3rder of the
Single Judge, passed power conferred
under 2 India in the
matter rnade deciding an issue,
or to the Court, in the
courseofa suit proceedings, not finally disposed
of, which is V attracted’: Section 115 CBC. and is
gotzerned urtderfiection of the Karnataka High Court
_ in all Votlter~ matters which are not attracted by
A ‘ and not governed under Section 8 of
._ appeal would lie under Section 10(iv-a)
tltellllorder passed under Section 9[xii) of the
Kam.at.;r}»:a High Court Act read with Articles 226 and
, A’ of the Constitution of India and Rules 2(1), 26 and
S .’39=of the Writ Proceedings Rules as well as Article 11{sa)
to Schedule II to the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits
Valuation Act, 1958″.
5. Hence, foiiowing the decision of Larger Bench in
AND OTHERS Vs. MISS RENUKA AND OTHERS repgrte:i.”_~fi.f:j
2009 KAR. 1207, this writ appeal is also dismisse(i……
Index: Yes /No.
Web Host: Yf’5S’/’Non 7i 3
Snb/ =1 __ age *