-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANG-A1»_0RE DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY or FEBRUAB}? BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.Jus'rIjCE '.3A.w7AD, CRL.R.P. No.3é5_/:1.;é;_db9TT"-_" 1. _ T, " BETWEEN: . P. Munigunéa, S/0. Papanna, Aged 41 years, _ residing at No._1_, V.P. Road, QVIe3Z_EVEvadEv§aIa,» y _ . Hosur Road}. , Bangiaioreif"7.5'_.,V _ .-- ...Petiti0ner. (By Sm." ;<%rts:w_5';--;' AND 2 iG'oviis<E_@ Gayyfamma, ' _W,/yo.-.!?;'~Mu;*£ivgunda, Ag en' » .a'i:*2.Q'L; yea rs , "re'sT:'ding7a}" [£0,344/2, K.C. Kumara, N-a_gappa.ii'ayout, Sorqasundara Pafya, AA KCDCv._Nagar, E~3Li":E«a Ready Mix Road, 'A.g.a'ra Post, "§Bangal0re.. ...Respondent.
” (By Sr’: V. Subhash Reddy, for Sri K. Raghavendra, Advs.)
>k>K>§K>if’«’f{‘/0:5;».’:d.’at:edd_;6.12.2008 on the file of VI
Addition’ai.._dC.vM.lVl,,V Exatrigttaiore.
~ Thi_s is posted for admission after notice to
o,t:h.e”rdVf’s.§,de. Though the learned counsel for the
re.spo,n’den’tAsoiight adjournment, I have declined, because
_ Igghauvaiheard the learned counsel with regard to the issue
iimine, which is nothing but to decide what should be
..;the quantum of alimony to be fixed. No serious issue of
any other nature requiring consideration is canvassed or is
it»
.7′
“3
1
in issue. Hence petition is admitted and it is,.tal<»e:n r-i3;pV1'.Or
finai disposal.
3, The uncentroversial facts t”hat’Athe-.peti’tiVon::er it
married one Smt. Gowri @,C_3owramrna acc,’o’.rdtlng’ to: Hindus
rites and was living with matr.i_rri’oniy.zf:Whiie the
respondent alleges’::~.¢A_iiat_;’Ad’ hie–jy._w”a’sy. irresponsible and
neglected her and also” of violence, the
petitioner holijsxyher r_esponsi’ble’ f.or..dveésertlng him. Be that
it as,lvitl’–m,’arY’j.;ihithiegfacicsthattbo-thvare knit in the matrimonial
bontigisifweii”iéstélaig’i’is-iiécibefore the Trial Court. “Fine
respondllent vbylifiilrzgl ‘a:.”~~’i’petition invoked the provisions of
Domestic VioAl’enc_e_y..Act complaining of domestic vioience
Her principle prayer was to direct the
“.p’etitione’r-:_tn=’pay Rs.1S,OOO/- pm. as maintenance. in this
reiigard, she alleged that the petitioner was running a wine
it store and was a man of means. He was owning several
properties and was thus capable of paying maintenance of
‘ Rs.15,OOO/~ pm, Before the Trial Court, the petitioner put
up a defence of inability of paying any amount to the
i7cfCw
-4-
respondent as monthly maintenance. According _to_:h.i_rln._ he
was only a manual labourer earning a me_ager”‘an’iou”nt;r.V
which was also not regular. He d__e.n.ie__d th_e”f’a’ct:’tha’t» he w.as”x
the owner of the lands or was prorpriietrosii or».pa~r_tner Iotr.gwme
store. In short, he conte-_nd.ed that: thei’ohAliy’v«~.s.ou.r9ced
income was his physical labO_LJ.rV’:a.s_ a_y_Vcool.Ee–«an_d the amount
earned was just sufficient. toLo’§ferrutwo:co.urse of meat. The
learned Trial ._}ud__ge d’i’sbel:i1ey”e;}.”»tyhis’_version but held that
even if thiisvwéngegstojr-e_ is.’ no-tfhés business, the property
shown blelloiiged which he had a share, was
sufficéentto yield’:.lsLilbstLa’nriai incorne. Corning to the claim
of it-h.egres’poriden’t, theV«”lrial Court held Rs.15,000/– was on
nae an’d””dnxed at Rs.5,000/– as monthly
In appeal against the said order, the
A-.ppei_ta~te’4E’rCAourt has reduced further by Rs.1,000/-. This is
x the uoflniiy issue that has come up for consideration before
” t_his Court as to” whether the order impugned passed by the
Revisional Court directing him to pay Rs.4,000/- is just and
proper or whether it needs modification.
ifiéafl
-5″
appropriate to direct him to pay Rs.3,poo,r§u'<ip'_;.fi;fa;
maintenance; subject to further order_hth:'a~t. ujounéidii'
passed on detailed enquiry by thejuriiisijivchoriai.:i§'i'a.g.i,Vst'r'ate";
5. it is further maCie_v:”ci..ear that .boithAts.ijd–e.s. are at’
iiberty to piece s’u’*h;__otner_maAte_ri’a.i. as riiaxg avaiiabie
with them income of the
petitioner and_o’n_.pro§;i’ui:”tion the quantum of
maintenaince_.isiAiou.id” by the Triai Court
withQ.ut~.a,be’i’n:§ linfiuenjedjivby’-any,»§observation made in this
order. Petition is disposed “i