High Court Karnataka High Court

Papaiah vs Punnyamma on 16 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Papaiah vs Punnyamma on 16 July, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
1
EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 1679 DAY OF JULY,    lfjjf 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :Si'A1§ANDATi4"w.*%,%,   " V

Cr1.P. No.4s93}2§o5
Between:  u

Papaiah, 

S/o.Ramachandra Boon,   . 1' V

Age major, 0cc:Ag;ric7u1turc   =  V' 
R/o.Botaran1   _  '  .. Petitioner

(By Sri Sharatxaliasappéi  Adv.)



 
 ya:$izfs,'T:0oc:Coo1ic,
R/.9.Borxas"p,ur, Tq:Chincholi,
Disi:Gi:Ibarga.

{ [ f2.°' I tzajcshvvazi,

 _ E)»/o'.jPapa1a.h' ,
"A352 ycars, minor thmugh
%  V tier natural mother ihzxmyamma,
"  'W/o.Papa'uah. .. Respondents

Sri’I’ Rajararn, Adv.)

me learned trial’ judge

This criminal petition filed under _ V
praying to set aside the order dated 26.9.2005
Fast Track Court»!!! at Guibastga in Cr}.
Chinchoii in CrI.Misc. No.29/2001.

This cumin’ ‘ al petition oommg’ for Ah:=Vm*£n_g1
the Court made the following: ” ‘ ”

The petitioner is the No.1 and
father of mspondeg: 1:1; refused to
maintain them. a petition under
3 ‘ V’ A 1 petitioner hmein

K/J
them. it is also

had neglectezj
contended that tcgiien second Wife.

rt”

.e:., V’ appreciation of evidence has

me gas taken a second wife and he had

AA..é;iven msyeizdents fitam his house. A panchayath was
. wherein petitioner had agreed to give 3 acres of
:fo1§V1%:j’a;?ntenanee of respondmts.

‘£2/aving Iegmd to income of

«. A-..qA;-,§eiii!$0ncr and amount mquinzd for sustenance of

éespondcnts granted mahatenanee at the rate of Rs.400/~

V.

Section 482 ‘

RP»..Ne.8–2/2O05’4an!:i–[
also order dated 27.6.2005 passed by PrL_JMFC=atA_

p.111. to respondent No.1 and Rs.200/– pm. to

No.2. Aggr1cv’ ed by the same, ”

No.82/2005. The revisional court one ri§_¥afipieci§§tion_u

evidence has confirmed the ”
judge. Therefore, pctitionerjs

Section 482 Cr.PC.

5. On considerofioo of below,
1 find that trial of evidence has
held that to maintain
mspondente;-e_ fie’ maintenance at the
rate of Rs.4oo/”;._pu;1a. No.1 and Rs.2oo/- p.131.

to;espons?gei1t”No.2 to income of petioloner the

emo1§ni« .. : for_’ maintenance of respondents. The

ieepprmmfion of evidence has confirmed

findiiigs 1 court. Therefore, I do not find any

‘ iniieefem with the orders passed by courts below.

petition is dismissed.

M sd/~

Judge