IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE»
DATED THIS THE 2?" DAY 01:' AUGUST 2008, % AI 5 - %. K
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAL: A
3230 z~zo.77,r2oO§ *
BEE WE EN:
SR. Swamy @ Rudres.h,'é_
Aged about 39 years,
Sic. Sandum Ramachmdmfig :1 I
Major, Agficultzitisst,
R/'0. Mayakazidagn'
'V V.
(By S1-i.S.V. Géddhm; kg; 3; j1é;g:a:,%% rfaxanezm Praflxima
Hennapura and Chaim fionr.I.f&;31;ra,V Advs. For Giridhar and
C0,)
2 _____
Smtflé. sgmaigg ,
Aged abs.2u¥--.38 years, V
' __ x'W'2'fl.S,R. Swangy @'.vRndresh,
Cfo.G,. Basavarajappa,
, Téiluk,
V « . }§}.s:s{ana,gcrr3*7District.
% % _N#j$§"Re§iding behind
~ . 'V " L .. Durg'ambika Temple,
C50. G. Rajappa,
. . . Petitioner.
Davanagere. . . _Respe:§dei:fiQ _ A'
(By Sri.S.Y. Patil for Sri.S.N. Hatti, Advs.)
This RPFC is filed under Section 19(4) af cm: L
Act, 1934, against the order dated epassede
CrI.Misc.No.196/2006 on the file J of the Judge, Fe,n§ily~ (3=oiirt,"--,
Davanagere, partly allowing the petitiesg filed» underT'See$§on. 125 of '
Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance. "
This RPFC coming on 'day, the Cevurt made
the following : -- ' '% -.
Theugh admission, it is taken up
far final dispeéel ey%[¢.on§$;;gt n:'ee:¢mea¢ea%m1 for both the parties.
2. learned Counsel for the parties.
Perused Veeidenee af the petitioner and the
Family Court and ether material an
learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. ""'Sri.S:.i\r'-.:ekfiiridhar, learned caunsel for the petitioner-
' eebmitted that thaugh several grounds are urged in
:,ti1is'.--retjieie z1 petition, he will restrict the revision only in respect of
:----'.»_r*~~--...»»--~\,,,«»~
the qsantum of maintenance awarded by the Family Cc-ur1:_.i.r__1 the
hnpugned order dated 31.32008 passed in
Misc.Nu.l96f2006. In this regard, he submits that the _
0f the Family Court, Davanagare, committed' 'ersd: in' a_\§vatd_ijig'VVifi'«
favour (Bf the respondent-wife Rs.V2_.Q_00:'- V--montl§~"--l. *'
maintenance payable by the petitioner} cpntfa; }P$iL the
learned counsel for the resgzlal-1l_..£§i=;:1_1’t-“.l:szu*if_s?.,.Vl’. ‘£152,330/– per
month which is fixed b3;Lli1e Ba1i1ily”¢Cau;f¢,_ flat smficient for
a woman lilfié the to maintain herself in these days
K and theretbrc,’lt11;$ (Sf maintenance does not call for
any intetftéfénae in tliis._;9é:Visic§=n.
l 4,_ba3 the impugned order, it is seen that the learned
finding at paragraph No.3 therein that the
has admitted in his cross-examination that he
of coconut and areca land. On careful reading of the
‘V-li[“lc_f§l§s-éxaminatian of RWI, the petitioner-husband, it could be seen
though he has admitted that 6 acres 11 guntas of land stands in
¢–I”-“”\…_……
the name efhis father, he has denied the suggestioe that 2: 38
games efland stands in his name. This being the evideheei.
the said finding recorded by the learned J§*.£i’ge–of
contrary to this evidence. Further,
reeerd ef rights pertaining tn the land”be&.ring 5 ii
acres 22 games and it stanciein the
father of the petitienerAghizsbai;;iV._v:’:i?,:eiI?}’i?i copy of the
fend bearing It reveals that
the said gem. Rncirappa s,:a.P.-S.
Ramappa, is:1;e.i{:’e:itiezier or his father. This being so,
it eannet he flzetiiithei E3192 belongs ta either the
vpetijtiene: ei Ah-iefather. Therefore, the finding recorded by
the..AIeiifi;edv.h:1dgei::iOf the Famiiy Court that the family of the
,,,.,__,;esporideiiti acres of land, is eentrary to this decumeetary
– ivfiifiitififiéifi. Therefore, the amount of maintenance fixed at Rs.2,000.f1~
requires E) be reduced prepertienatelfy. Though the
iiiiieeigieniient-wife has alleged in her petitiee that the husband and his
has got income 01″ Rs.20,G00x’- per month, she has net
c——.l”*”-“”\…—-~v
(J!
preduced any material to substantiate the same. This averrnent is
categorically denied by the liuehand. Besides this, the
husband has not stated either in his objectiees ta ‘
petiiion er in his evidence, as to what is his’ e:~ract7_4i:zeoz§1e]freiaiflthe.’
said agricultural lands. It has also come inii¥:.E1ei’eija:£deneev_n
his father is getting seine pension,
as {(3 the .q’u:1ntum ofpension; A_ i ii i ii
5. Having regard to all of the ease,
and the ineginleieii. I feel that the ends of
justice wouleiibei met ef maintenance awarded in
the impug;ner:l_ ifikoxn Rs.2_,OO0f’- to Rs.1,500/- per
(iii: .res1iiIt,._vf1;e present revision petition is allowed in part
:””~”and order dated 31.3-2808 passed in
” ‘£:i£..Mise.LNei.1§i’i/2006 on the file of the Famiiy Court, Davatzagere,
laereifiy aiedified by reducing the arneunt of maintenance payable
Vi , _ itei_4ihe’;ietitiot::er-wife therein by the respencieni-hnswnd therein free}
r–F”‘fi..–~«\_,
Rs.2,000;’- per month ta Rs.1,500f- per month {ram the data;
ofthe maintenance petition. The amount of
the petitioner-husband in this revision petifitm fa’ 2
the Family Court, Davanagere, so as to
same by the respondent-wife.
NG*