1 WP 29022w24/09
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT sANGALORs
DATED THIS THE 15" DAY or OCTOBER, 2oQ9rxig
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJET J,sUN§AL'f -
warr PETITION No.29O22--290é@ Qfiiéooé-{GMwFQ§WriC
BETWEEN:
D.Harish, .f>x « *2
8/0. late G.V.Dodda Ramaiah, {f
46 years, 3 '=u'
No.623, 2" Block, ,w.fu
E Main Road, Rafiajinagar,ig 4V._;V
sanga1ore--56Ojo1Q:V .=, fl' _ a"'::L PETITZONER/S
{By Sri. S:G.Bhaga§an, ads}?
AND:
R.M.Mamatha, "V
W/O. D,Harish,'
MajOr,§' "
"+sanrhruprhi', iO:5,V
30'"3Ma,i_n", j 3.
Banqalore&56O
I1 Stage,
. RESPONDENT/S
1M.
O76
7'<*7\-
Ihsméwrlr PetitionS§wEjfiied u/Articles 226 and
, '227 or the Constitution of indie, praying to call
"ufOZtthé records in l.A. Nos.3 to 5 in M.C. No.646/O5
, _from 'the Court of the Prl. Judge, Family Court,
"-_Bangalore and also for quash the Orders dt. 25.6.09
. on l.A. Nos.3 to 5 in M.C. NO.646/05, passed by the
_ Court of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bangalore as
""per Ahnexure~"A".
Thesevwfii: PetitiohS coming (N) for Preliminary
Hearing, this day the Court made the following:
2 WP 29022e24/O9
ORDER
The petitioner is the husband and the
respondent is his wife. The petitioner/husband has
initiated proceedings under Section 13 of the fiindu
Marriage Act for dissolution of the marria@erssit;is_
not in dispute that the marriage, sérwééhi $he_ ”
petitioner and the respondent Haas lgolemnigeai or
21.05.1996 and during the»e.vgedlVo’o_’}.{:”_4_two
born. The first child isfi the “dauQhter Hands thel
second one is the JSQU. :imTh?i*iflitiationi of the
proceedings for dissolution Yfif the nmrriage is on
the ground of crueityxag Well as desertion. Be that
as it may} the matter is pending adjudication before
the Eamily vcourtl V” During the pendency of the
“; §:océeaifigs}xt the respondent/wife makes three
applications Viz., I.A. Nos.3, 4 and 5. Pursuant to
the .said..a§piications, the respondent/wife sought
“.g_for maintenance for herself and her two minor
Vx._children. The said application is seriously opposed
*ca”hy the petitioner/respondent in this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the said applications are not
;fl;~
3 WP 29022–24/O9
maintainable. The respondent is staying in the
matrimonial home, she has also put the petitioner
under threat and made him to leave the hflnse is :ae_
month of February 2000 and she is wenjavinge them
petitioner’s house. He further hsvhmitsdithatm the
petitioner is a small time ‘consultant T§reparing*i
building designs and estimates*in the name and style
of Space Design and his totai income assessed for
the year 01.04.2005 3;;u:li,m¢eiris.2,28,7:944
and the claimt made “eye thee resfiondent/wife is
excessive. Vihe said apeiiéations were taken up for
consideratjonexifhe learned Family Judge has found
that havingr hfggarfia fag ‘ the income of the
petitionerfhusband at ks.2,28,7l9–24 disclosed from
V the income tak returns, the maintenance claimed by
V_the,res§ondent/wife cannot be said to be excessive
and awarded a>fiwintenance in a sum of Rs.4,000–00
0 0′ p.m. to the respondent/wife and Rs.2,000m00 p.m. to
00”,eech of the child, in addition a sum of Rs.S,OO0–00
*-towards iitigation expenses. Having regard to the
0*a cost of living and keeping the body and soul
:together, I am of the view’ that the maintenance
awarded. by the Family Judge cannot be said. to belfig
excessive or arbitrary.
this petition.
question the Order passed: by” the’ Famiiv.
I.A. NO.VZ.
Ksm*
I do not find any merit
The petition stands dismissed.
It is open to the fletitiefierfhuebafid »
J .
VCOurtV
WP 29822-24/O9
ion”;