High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Fabian Byford vs Mrs Sharmine Bernadine Byford on 25 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mr Fabian Byford vs Mrs Sharmine Bernadine Byford on 25 February, 2009
Author: N.Kumar
 ----=~A-.. yr mmamm mus:-u couxr or xnmnmxp men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA man com

IN THE nmn count as xmuarnxa AT % f  _

Dated this the 25"' day of Febnzar-'$2003  

ma uonmm mt. Jusrzcs afizuugn. % A    

Mr. mama  %    
szo. Emc  J    
men 38 YEARS.'     «
PRESEN11,Y'iVa9eT':§§lO.:§iAE:',- 

15m CRO<SS.   %

cm. MILL RDAD,'    

57. moms Town   
B.A.NGA§_{_)RE-BC." _  '

 &  . &V  %%%%%  vmnmea
(By M}"s. _  ADVs., 3

wanna-u-«ulc-

 _ Mrs. SHARHINE BKRADINE BYFGRD
 "'v:'§"/0. FABIAN BYFORD
; AGES 35 YEARS
T AND D/0. LESLIE D'MONTE
PRE.'5$NTLY R./AT N033, 15'!' CROSS
VIVEKANANDA HAGAR
BANGALORE - 560033

 RESPONDENT

-nun uvvnl vr l\l’|l\l’l”\lI’\I\l’\ I’ll\.7I”‘I LUUKI gr “AKNA’AKA figfifi LQQUKF {JI’ KAKNAIAKA HIGH CUUI

than employer, which application was not consid_u_§red.;VV’_~ _
wife has sworn to a false affidavit mntendin.;§’::V.tlla§ ”
petifioner was earning Rs.1,0Gr,£)(:2:l;)[-:.:gl’a¢;:’

documents praducad by the pataifEanér_v;§’howsVtliaglzilllé

earning only 1500 Dirharm, l§vli’e:._V”vvIg1lu¢V”¢fin the
Indian currency is when it is
demanstratod thug she the
Family Court_Vuafa§§s”:A:’rv§§t the impugned
order! ..

4- Act dealing with Alimony

V pendegm ;6!’el’1l”re#§:ls-$5 &’nd§§:

sat under £115 Ad’, whether it be
V a husband or a mute, and whether
age She has obtained an order an’ pratectlan,

.. , g*.heV”‘a-{rifle may present a petition far exgezrsw of

V’ * fire pmceedinw and aiimonr pending the suit.

Such pefitaim she»? be mrvvad an the
husband; and the Court, on being satafled cf
the truth of the statements therein cantammfi.

may make such arder on file husband’ for

-.- . , …… ……….u u. nnnn:-m-uxn mun LUUKI OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNAYAKA HIGH COU

dependent on her parenm and nave the huE_§3fifi_’j §!Vé$:__’
refused and neglected to maintain her and’.t::»auf:ef¢r§, 4sjha_ ‘
has sought for alimony. Except tfzge ‘

husband and the demand,’ fpr

avormenu are substantially on
verifying the rnaheriai :’c§§; §§;9fica!l;,} field that
both this parties hgve ne;..ad_fi-u<L$é§::5»' f§n'§~v§§§d._ééicn in support
of their respe;&:§*¢aé{.1'=§3¥§inf;5, in
View of an "f'=fa§':'1i|y Courl: procaaded
to swat? %%%§§Rs.2,mo}~ per month
and litigt;ti:?:¥1" In the fight of we
admittgsa ggagtiansfnig rm parties, the fact that the

!i"'r"a'~5._ """ Ms fob, he was not aamirifl

i.ssij.~;:ieged and the wife is now earning a

i fabdisfifis §a~%z§iI5,§V hoids no water. Therefore, I do next find
% jfgny maittfi-; this pets;-inn.

. sfiéccordingiy, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

film’! 3