High Court Karnataka High Court

S Balakrishnan vs Smt Varalakshmi on 25 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
S Balakrishnan vs Smt Varalakshmi on 25 February, 2009
Author: N.Kumar
-' vu n-r'u\I1r1IrtnrI 'II\JlI is-\J\II\' \-Ir l\1"|I§lV.l"\lI*\I\I'\ F'lI\3'TI \..\JIJI§| KI!' l\I'|I{I'l'\II-\I\-Fl f1I\7"I K-o\J'J

at 'me man COIIRTOF KARIIATAKA AT  Q  _

Dated 61isthe25"'dayof Februagy     A

BEWRE '.  
THE I-IOI'Bt£ an. static: 2:" min;  

Eflififihb.

    

sou 05-12 I  
AGED ABOvLf?i;_34YEARE' «  
R{A'?"NQAV2:4{1;':§>E1Cfl,0SS, 
NAfiAPPA'RE!¢*!m'.    %
mvaur, SR1 i~.a.fixf.G£!_?1"£--. Reszuencv
B nARAwmfia.mA, BANcsA1.oR£~15

 PETITIGNER

  "( By _'S5'§  Am, )

--I Inn§."._

 1  sr§rrizAaAu'smHM1

'WIFE OF BALfisi(R$HfiiAN AND

  we MUTHU z PRAYING 70:: QLIASH Tfieemjaa 
av. 22.03.2095, passes an I.A.?'§t3.3._ '=IIN"> 
M.(I.N0.23?(}l20D?, av THE LEARNED IIND..AI3DI1"IGNA§."' , A
PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT; -$AN£AL6FiE ',-i!d
Au.ow:mcs THE sme, VIBE mx-H%B%:~%T{azk 

RESPONDENT T0 JGIN WITH THE PETI1'}.'.$E'NR;'-  .

Thk Writ Petition cqmingfar”-~PreIih-iirzary..v5;cearing

thb day, the Calm: madefifg’ _

T$’a this writ patiaan seelcing
for quashif§’g.._¢_V6fv by the Family Court

p:aymafit*–af___Rs~3,000{- as interim rrsaintenance to

2, T5: marriage between the parties is not in

. v T’ha Imrriaga is consummated. Wife iived with
H V ‘iitisband for a period cf four months. it is flzereafber,
“~ :é§h”e started iiving separately. She was pregnant. Tha

mabariaf an accord shows that me chiid died afier deiivary.
It is the case of the wife that hsscause of the: death of the

\/..

u-1

* “V” *–vvI$:..-gr” IKAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEGI-I COURT OF KARNAIAKA HIUI1 uuuru ur nnnuvmnnm mun -…-..u.m

4. Before the Court bseimm, no mat;sri–1a}IVV~’:’fié’s;f_:V”
prnduced to show that the wife had ufv’
Rs.16,(300/- by way of rent. Efen

producad before ms Ceurt an not tf1atV.1:>;–§~2§.§§ j1iss’i’;a’ii”

income of Rs.16,£300l-. It :2 an be
recorded. But, at the young.

Tho husband wgnm Q4-.;;:-V;’x73″u9al rights.

Pmbably, if thg” disposed of
within a Ea pnossibifity of the
wife circurrstances, in
order between the parfies

muplsg ..w_ithAAfac.i; tli’at’;.”t..l1e impugned ardur was passad

I-‘i’V “wh§h~ i31a§:f~aiiztgg rfV<iVV"r':i':§vtJoriai on record has show that the

V irscame, the inw-im order af the
i interim mainwrzance of Rs.3,00B{-
mofétfi; cannq It is submitmd that
of the impugned ardvar, the hashand has made
inwards intarim maintenance and he has has pay

~ fvr anothutr six rmnths. In any View of tm mamr, I do

not find any gm gmund ta interfere with the
discretionary ordar passw by the famity Ceurt. But, tr!-ta

"""""' V' """""""""'"' '"V'' '-\-'V*\''_. 93'! IVKIIIII-Ilrllu-1 -null spvunu vs Ivnnnvnnnnrs "Il\Jl'I uwwnl vr nnnlinlnnn nnzn \.vun- vu l\r|I\I'Ir-nlruuia-1 nu… q…-..-….

petifioner E sntitl-ad no spud? disposal «of his

restitution of conjugal rights. Hence, I pass..tl.1 §Vfve§!:§§s.;.ing'V'

Grader: –

0) The um 9emoa.<s: A j
(it) The up this
matter 'wad dmpcwe of
{ram the date
of 5 differ.

(#r) 1ééar%f=’i%e¢ras«?& «ma

géiw

§ué§@

A ” « Vsuma