"~ V (By SR1 SURESH DDESHPANDE, ADV.) IN THE HIGH COURT OE KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 14% DAY OF DECEMBEF::2€)fQ$3"'vv.V BEFORE 4_ 1' VA « THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE A x R.P.F.C.NO.V 28 BETWEEN: DR.M.SWA.MY RANGA REDDY, S/0 MPANDURANGA REDDY, 5 AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, \_ 1 DATTA SA: MULTI SPECIALTY DENTAL H.QSI--?i1~TAL, H.NO.2~2--392/ 1 /2',/4, OPP;FEVER }I_OASFI'1"AL ' NALLAKUNTA, .. HYDERABAD --3_5OCg5O'4.--«1..V ...PETi'1'.'IONER (By A.MADHL§S:}_D,HAN' H';'S'.S'DE'3IARAJ, ADVS.} AND: V A % 1 . SMT. DR. M.DA\1VES"}V1WAR:*;' " A « " W/O DR*..M."£E-WAMY RANQA REDDY, D/O SRLEAP1 EEDDY. AGED ABOUT .25 YEAR , .. V M;SAI- SHANVMUKANANDA, 'S10 D_R;M;vSWAMY RANGA REDDY. .AGEDV'AE0D*rV1_~~ YEARS 3 MONTHS ~. MINOR REPRESENTED BY HES 'NATURALE-UARDLAN MOTHER, TI"-IE 1'-S? RESPONDENT,
‘ M
‘ .. BO’I’H’RESIDING AT 8–3–3l8/6/8
~ V YELLA REDDY GUDA
‘SRE’NAGAR COLONY.
HYDERABAD — 500 073. A ..RESP(NfEN’I’S
‘M1
completed MDS master degree in Dental surgery. As on
the date of marriage, the 18? respondent had completed
MDS and wife was only BDS doctor.
4. It is the case of the 15* petitioner that
differences between herself and respondent .
sent out of the matrimonial house, shed” the
residing with her parents hoi3.ese?}a’iong
petitioner. When the matter’s_too_d th’us__,
Medical College. Mysore for ‘G.ourse’ivn. the year
2003 and completed thee” Soxrember 2006.
Duringi’-.__the_’ fwas in Mysore she filed
c.Mise.8o/2094 eeeieege maintenance from the
respondeiat for*~se1f and her minor son in a sum of
A the said proceedings, the respondent who
epetitioner herein entered appearance and took up the
jcoiiterition that, is’ petitioner voluntarily left the
it matrimonial house along with their minor child. She is
“*1
4
not entitled to any maintenance for the reasons that she
is only daughter of her father, with his supports and
consent, she has deserted the petitioner and has taken
up MDS course. Petitioner has paid more than
lakhs for payment seat in i\/IDS Course M
pursuing the master degree in dental’sui*gei7y.Alyi}ithVv’the
financial assistance provided to her7by’–her father Whollisp it
financially well placed, there neeVcl._Vfo’r
to pay maintenance toner. V
6. it is further respondent
when this — pending adjudication, 1~’-‘~t
petitioner initiated under Sections 3 and 4
of Doiyliyiifiarassnientpiixct I’/W 498A of IPC against the
in”~C__.C.No.474/ 2006, which is pending. The
initiated proceedings for decree of
gdivorcez against the 1st petitioner in FCOP No.49?/2005
the Vfllfile of the Family Court, Hyderabad on
and the same was aiiowed by judgment and
W
decree dated 28.12.2007, dissolving the marriage
between the parties and the said judgment is in appeal
on the file of the High Court of Hyderabad.
6. When the matter stood thus. based
trial conducted in C.Misc.80/2004 the Court .
appreciation of the pleadings, doc_u,m,ents_-‘and-eevi’d’eVn.ce=-_ hi”
on record has proceeded to partially
the petitioners by making foilioixri-rig orclerzi _ A
The petition is ‘co.st5,Eof
Rs.5.000/– to be page byl_the respohdent within
15paays.h.iic::c xiii’; it
that the respondent
shall pa’Q..,a’s1).m”‘of Rs.4,000/- p.m. towards
. ‘-the i,_mair;tenarice”of first petitioner from the date
a ” at at 31.12.2006.
__ farther ordered that respondent shall
pap”;.a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. towards
it rnaihtenance of 2nd petitioner from the date of
petition an December 2006 and Rs.3,500/–
p.m. from the date of this order, with a
W’/I
8. The marriage is admitted. Birth of 2113
petitioner in the wedlock between the 15′ petitioner and
respondent is admitted. It is also admitted that both
are qualified doctors. Further it is seen that
Court while perusing the evidence and m-ateria1’g”~– .
record, has not looked into the. ._fact_–“th’at.’_’;V.iS*i._ ll”
petitioner in her evidence in
that she is gainfully employed””afterAcoifr1plVetion._;’of..1Vil)S * it
from JSS Medical ,.co11ege.,—-llliphixflysore V…eaming
Rs.18,000/- pm. The’tnall’CVdu:rt’has:also not looked
into tliel”‘i’faot pendency of the
proceedings._ passed by the trial Court
a SL1IVI_1_v of has been paid to cover the
of llth’e””iVSf petitioner for the period from
litddune 2006, which fact is admitted by the
is? »..petitio1fie,ril herself in the cross examination in
l”‘”«__lVdivorceeegproceedings, which is pending on the tile of
Court, Hyderabad. The trial court without
it .looking into all these facts has proceeded to partially
W
l0
petitioner until the child attains majority. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner is at liberty to seek
enhancement, in so far as 2nd petitioner is concerned in
the proceedings pending on the file of High cQnrt’r.of
Hyderabad as and when the need arises for _
his education until he attains the age of «
Accordingly, this reyisionm glietitionlgi is» 2
allowed.