WP No.15684/2007
INTHEHIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA 1' ' V
cmcuxw BENCH AT DHARWAD ., ._ '
DATED THIS me 241" DA? ()1? 20_.IF.'-S-,1 »
OF
mm ksmrLraoAD.,% _
SAPTAPIIRVVDHARWAD. 1;' '~ '-
S/O LAXMAN MULLAT'TL * ' "
AGE.:22YEARS,v._ . . ' .
OCC:S'1'UI3EN'I', R/'C UPSTARS
.v OF A1?.:'Ji1BUfl.DflQG," «
I:;ri-miE12,sm*LRoAD,
' ~ . sA?'rA9LR1VDHp,R3arAn.
. . .PET1T1ONBR
, {BY ASSTS, ADVS)
_ L.
' ~ ._13R.LA:>TA1>UR DHARWAD,
u « SMT.P.G.GC)Lm,
OCCtTBACH}3R, AGP246 YEARS,
RIO ARATI BUKDIRG,
WP NO15684/200'?
UNIVERSITY ROAD,
SAFTAPUR DI-IARWAI). ...RESPONDHNTS
(BY SRI,D.M.BANDI, ADV FOR R1
SRI.S.S.BAWAKHAN, AIDV F OR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 225 :>.';2'7fOF
TIE CONSTITUTION OF mmzx PRAYENG TO Qtjasfi ORm:R_
I3E13072007iPASSEE>(flfi LA FHJH LmaIEROsECTR3u}15rVCPc 3%"
O.S.NO.160!2{)O4 ON Tim FILE OF f'PRL.'CE'\(1L }f{}I.".')GE (SR.*DN';')
D$®W®W%MW%flE®M®flQ:m9H J*"fi*r
THIS PEIITION cONm~IG,O2.~; FOI§"FIfRTIIER»'f1E+$RiNG; figs',
DAY,TI~flT, COURT MADE THE FOLLOw::~:G; " V. "
,OORpfiR',
1. This petition is Tcic'iZ=:x1V%L'é11uiis,VOO,':2. 3. Defendant
No.2 this No.3 is the son. The
pate;-my 'of <1.ejre;?i;1gnt.$"-;z::';s:_x;d' 3 is not disputed. Plaintifi'.
1"espondcui1Ot_< ._ a suit for declalation and
in Ié':s;)¢¢_'_c_rof the suit schedule property. In the
' sOh:duie property, the defendants 2 and 3 are
Dining the pendency of the suit, an
ap'fi1i¢ait;iOi1".1;s filed :1] s 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by
deft.-;_-ntivénts 2 and 3 sccleing for intmém maintenance at the
V:féd:c:i'A--of Rs.3,0()Q/- each. This Objections were filed. The
" V' 'léamed Judge having regard to the material available
on record was of the View that dafendant No.3 is not fiflfiflfid
for majntenancfi inasmuch as he has attained majority. In
_/
4;
' c
u
WP No.15684/2007
:3:
so far defendaxzt No.2 is concerned, he was of
that she is an unmarried daughter and H K
maitxtenance. Hence, has
and granted maintenance at _"tl1ev4'1*z;1hte..of ks,
month. The defendants 2 .1§efote
quesfioning the amouv£t'~of ground that
it is too meager,
2. 1 hm-J passed by the
1ea:med__ the grant of interim
No.3 is concerned, the same
caimottbe: as he has attained majority.
II3i{.T31.§:€3'tE:t1,..Si1b.V (Q) Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions
«aaxci 1956, envisages that a legitimate or an
may claim maintenance from his or her
fatherV___*or.vt'1§(1other so long as the child is a minor. The
to defeadtaat No.3 was 22 years old as on the date when the
'' '.._Va:*i3§.ua'iicatior:. was filed. Hence, I am of the View that the
ilearxtod trial Judge was right in rejectirxg the claim of
defendant N<.).3--petitio11eir No.2.
we N.15684f2007
: 4 :
3. In so far as defendant No.2-petitioner No. 1 is
concerned it has to be noticed that the amount
not be sufficient for her maintenance. Indeed, _
maintenance is required to be measured -« .,
cf respondent Nola-p1aintifi'. The
abie to place any materia} tosiiow tasivhiiin the L,
plaintifi’. Be as it may, it hasv”i’e:in;e_ on”r:;¢§>1{i “lie was V
working as a Pmfessox’.;:’_’A_s is It is also
not in dispute that the ape residing in
the ‘end ‘is in the ground floor.
4. Haxjingé ‘totality of the cimumstances, I
am of. the thst of maintenance in favour of
i V. g1¢’£m3a::m No.2#j§$etitioner No.1 Ieqlnires marginal
into consideration the overall picture
in i parties have placeci themselves, the interim
maintenance so far as defendant No.2~petitioner No.1 is
concerned, it is enhanced fmm Rs.1,000[~ to Rs.2,0GE)]-.
Consequently, the petition is allowed in };:art. ‘1’ he
order passed by the learned trail Judge in so far as %
919 N0. 1 5684/2007
defendant No.3-petitioner No.2 stands _
interim mazintenancfz in so far as defendant’ –}*f«c§}:’2§p:§fition§:i~-« ..
No.1 is concerned, it is
Rs.2,00{)/ -«. Defendam; N0.2s-‘pg’tifiO’fi’€If’N0.1
fer the interim maintenance : ti”3¢ éfigplication
i.e., fxbna. 03.05.2907. A H ”
Petition stands
V’ Sd/_,
% Judge
Jm/7 .,