IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATES THIS THE 15"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. yVENUGOPixi;AgvG'f)V:W--DA...:4 "S S'
warr PETITION No.13131/201:1 ';{eM%§cP'c58;..."
BETWEEN:
1. Sri S S Range Gowda
S/0 fate S Shivappa ' '
Aged about 74 years g
No.7 3'" block 2" stage - S
Nagarbavi Bangalore. *
2. Sri S R DEV5¥e4sf:f___--_'_ * _ __
S/o Sri S S Range Gowcfaijf
Aged avb__o_uVt'43"ye.a_rs. "
3. Sri R._RajVeSVh*-_»A"o S a
8/0 Sri 'S S-Raoge'!3o_wda"'
Aged about 38' years, »-- V
Petitioners 2 and .3':-are. r/"a
"Sr',i._RaVnga" '
V' _ Sha.n:i<a,_r£o u-ram Eiétensvion
.Has_sar_q. :PETITIONERS
(.'E5y__jSri Sa'r"Igai;nesh R.B., Adv.)
"1."S'ri1t:. Omana
V' W/o {ate S R Chethan
"Aged about 35 years.
2. Shefaii D/o late S R Chethan
Aged about 8 years
Since minor, rep. by
Naturai guardian --
mother -~ respondent No.1.
Both are r/a
No.4, 2″” Floor, Aashirvad Apartme
nt,:_,,, j.
No.25, Crescent Road, _ ‘
High Grounds,
Bangaiore ~– 1.
3. Smt. Nagarathnamma
W/o Sri s s Range Govrda. —
4. Smt. Soumyaybineshw
W/o S R Dineshi’
(By Sri R. Nat’araj§1,.>,.Adv…i’or .921 =an§1
. u _. . R2»:
R3 and R3; re deietiedjy’ V
I ‘V :RESPONDENTS
‘i?,his__ ,,fiie::§j….u;1d’er Articies 226 and 227 of
the Constitution offIn_dia_ p.ra,>ying to quash the order dated
12.3.10 passed in 0.5.460/09 on the
fiie of XXXVIII Addi.
City Civii Judge’, Ba’;nga_ioré City, vide Annextire-“N.
.V A petitionéveorning on for preiiminary hearing in ‘B _
Crroup’._th.is«.day_, the Court made the foilowing.
QRDER
2′ ” Respondents 1 and 2 / plaintiffs
“defendants, for reiief of partition and
have instituted suit
agaiinst the petitioners and respondents 3 and 4 /
separate possession
/
I’:
seeking 1/4″‘ share in the suit schedule properties.
Piaintiffs have filed I.A.1 under S.94(e) of CPC
8.18 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance
direct defendants 1, 3 and 4 to pay’ m.ainijenan”ce]_to vthem-.A
at the rate of Rs.1,00,G0O/- per
and objections to I.A.1 were fi_l”ed_, It”‘was’ con,te’nd’ed ‘that, i’
there is no joint family,.–in existence.andptheficiefenvdants are
not in a position to pay’ the plaintiffs.
The Trial Co.u,::t;’ ._u£>on’m ‘I.A.1 and the
objectionsdoeurnents which were
brough,t–«on_,rec’orti;;, treating the same as
havingi-pbee’ra CPC and has directed
defendants.___1,_ “4~.:_”.to pay maintenance amount to
plaviritiffs’at thee”-rat_e__of Rs.30,G00/– per month from the
id;a’te_,Vof.vA_appl.i:c’at_i_on till the disposal of the suit, with a rider
paid shall be adjusted in the plaintiffs’
–V sharethe suit schedule properties, or in the mesne
‘:jlp’r’ofi,ts of suit schedule property which plaintiffs may be
— entitled or in the amount which the plaintiffs are entitled
K
towards their share in the capital ancgnrofits of the
V
f.
business from SSM Hospital, i-iassan. The defendants 1, 3
and 4 have filed this writ petition questioning the said
order.
2. In view of the deliberations that took M
is unnecessary for me to record any find_i.ng.
consideration of the grounds raised in..y,vfriit’4’petl,ti’on”‘against
the impugned order. Keep,ing_ in “view
made by the learned counsVel.._i%’on, both it was
suggested to them that,_.there_x co.ulfd’«..tie:’a«. reduced lumpsum
payment towards accu,m:ul»ated :»ar’rear’s..f_.o»’f maintenance
from the date’ till future payment
and exipeditioiusv’d.i:sposa’l’–.g:f”the suit.
3. R.B., learned counsel for the
usut>mits____,th:at, the petitioners will pay towards
arrears of maintenance, a sum of
six equal monthly instalments and the
future.’ ‘rnai’n.tenance amount of Rs.15,000/- per month
ifif'<4'if:fromyyléfffoctober, 2010 onwards till the trial and disposal of
–‘ suit and subject to the condition imposed by the Trial
“Court with regard to future adjustment. \
/7’
f
4. Though Sri R. Nataraj, learned counsei for
respondents 3. and 2, has reservation for the suggestiiongin
my opinion, the suggestion which came
from Sri Sangamesh, in the facts and >circurns’taif}”ces’i.ofthe ‘* V
case, is acceptable as an interim m.eas_urei;
In the result, the writ ;J:e’t-i.tion astands avi’l:o’wje.cl_,,iVnpart
and the impugned order stancl”s:V”rnod.i_fied.” pétitioners
shali pay to the respon.{ien’ts _/ plaintiffs, the
maintenance amount fortheiraccyuimuilatelil,period i.e., from
January, Rs.4,00,000/~ in
six Rs.6,67,000/- p.m.,
commencing frothA:-l..’th§~.,.,:tno’nth of October, 2010. In
acfdition, the peititionelrs shail pay to the respondents 1 and
pi’ainti.ffs, i§s’.’i$,000/» per month, towards the
~..ma_ii nVte.n’fa.nCé ~ . V :].~
The pleiadings in the suit are complete. The Triai
.’lsfi’cIirected to raise the issues within 3 weeks from
The parties are at liberty to file draft issues if any
_,within a period of one week from today. After the issues
/
.-
4′
are raised and witness lists are fiied, the piaintiffs_.._sha|i
adciuce and complete their side of evidence~«j”b:efore
18.12.2010. The defendants shall aciduce and
their side of evidence before the en.d~of.
The Trial Court is directed to iheaiir the
dispose of the suit as eariy-.v:VasV_A pra’ctica~i1ie’~.Van.d'”~ai; ‘any * L’
event, within two months from–the’v–date the”tria_! the suit
is complete. . t u
Neediess Qbset&}e:’th;at made towards
maintenance’ to outcome of the
suit stibjieciti–tojvhich the maintenance
amount has been awa’r’dedL4by4the'”Triai Court.
7isac*