High Court Karnataka High Court

S Sahadevan vs Geetha P K @ Prema on 2 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
S Sahadevan vs Geetha P K @ Prema on 2 September, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar

{H THE PHGH GGURF OF KA§RA”f’i&RFL AT

mama: Qndziay 31′ septmber 29 is, < 3 _

Frauen}:

§im.’h1eHr.Juafice

35¢ ‘- %
Hanbla
°’.”:9a53%-3% j
BE’I’WEEl;*2′:


S.S$1aaiem,z3.§V  

  
1-'era.   ~
   
._é'? 35i'?r}~3i_,»  V._ *

I (By Sr:  - Advncatc}

 '.      ' ..... .. "

  mm,

W} (3.. 

 ah@~:1_tjE':¥6 3/'W,
R1 2;. 1§z::.5,E:oc1:»§*,

‘ ‘ 1 ‘j . ‘ “‘f;<grpora.t§9n Apartment,
.« ' Raad, Kociiluafli,
" _ ' G38. RESWE§EHT

(smw — Unrepzwwfced — Haki sums-ient)

– 999–

‘W

.2.

WA 73 mm tmdezr Swtzian 1fi1)fFamily Ccrurm
Act agairzst fins csrder datbd 29-11~2OQf’$=,j in
€3.S.Ra.§1[98 passed by an 11
Fmily Caugrt, Eangakzre. » ,

E I*di.F.A wmfixg on far ezzrdws ‘A
publicatican b&:ne the Caurt dagr,

delivered the f:>Eawi1g:- A _

“ma Apganm: is cnaumg’ngkf;1m meg? of AA

the am: yam by man mwrrms:§%i&maaé,rsnny cam.
Bmgasm, dated 29-11-299§%%i§:%V0s,3:§:a;9:V:§g; J%E3za ma ms: was
smimted by ‘::'”§._..!§ie appaaiknt-huwand
aeckm I§.s.2,€J60!— per memth and also far

a 3 mm cf Rs.I5,,£fm:’- and also 40

. sf g§3″‘giY§}. in me appeilmt by her parents at the tim:

% =51’ 2*;;r¢a:;1*i.g:g’aa.:v’«v..’AI::i3::_ aria: cam decreed the suit in put dirccting thc

g;.g;ae1ai:;e pay zxmnthiy ‘ as as? izazmoi-. Baing

fhe mid order the plaseni afiml is fild by the

VA X3 §;;:Taébm:a

2. The marriage of thfi parties was scsiamztimd in tha gm:

1971. Out $’t¥1air wad-ionic two azgm wm born, out nfthem

en: child died ms! In other chfid is alive. On the grozmd that
huwand neglected and pay msintsmmce, the wife earlier fifed 8.

petition unda mm: :25 mm in came. 1~m.45¢;39,j-sgmaa

cam: in be aliawad awarding a maizlimanee emf

Lam’, ma numaac: mm divorce peti§iq;;»_bef01fe” *

Judge, Caixnbazore, in C3.P.1~I{:.296.’89,V”$’§rhi§:i1~§:azf14§ magma

fiace the paitien was not C0fl{£§§d_ i3§{ the ‘.£h¢:§§a§;’t§r,«..tI353wif¢ u ”

filed the wit for gent; ef ‘mg par

3. The fiflhe humarxd an the
gmmd that ig –§;<_:V an swam: of
her mngag in pmgimnm,
twice was #13 abtairzati a dmw ef divans

an 1113 mnafi af the same, wife is not antitiad to

V. ma§;2?§¢xi;£;§;m7_ Tfié rejected this mantentien mad held that

'r?.é:**~;* flea by the peliéa is not mfiicimt to dmy

w% g:s:%akdive4-cga Eacfy. The cm mam held that the

7 ¢f<3i§£§§¢e yanteé by the Coimbatm Cant: is mart: decree.-.

VA *5.' 133: trial Court awarwd maitstenmce of Rs.2,,e0flf- to me

A' % by m1a':da;m' g £he mane was husband. Being aggiwad by

'4 '4 ' = the ma the present appm} is filed.

6/

4. Mr. Lakmmmm, lsarzxad oaunaa! far the

cnmnda that mines the imabana has abtaineci

agaitsst. the wife: an amunt cat’ ha ccsaéjgfi imrzlgiftg “i{ ” ” ‘V

the rmmctmt-wife eannat caim niifiiaiimiafifie’

divcarecd huém. .6.ceordi11g’TV1’_.§~~ Am-L§_ nét

waciate me case oftha pg-attics ‘ =_

5. Having heard km appelmt, the
any paint far mpg.;agsaag::”2: W..a;’%is, the jumm
md deems tha appeilmt to pay
ma:’I:te11,s1-we W has 12:: be mt adds as”
net’? 1 ‘é ‘

5. *zi:a._mm§sg§’*mwL % the parties is not its fiwnta- It is

. Ei3&t..t!?i”a} chiiém was barn mdrof me wecmock.

‘Ié.i§ am that we dam-ge meets had been filed agaha

t1§¢’.ja’§fi’e which mad in aamziiztal. Iheremw, the wife

7._fi1ed Qmlicious prcesecution claistfmg whats mad the said

lg? aianism. 1:; is also mat in aimte that me wife has hm

aim-dad mm’ tmmwa at the: ms of Rs.3oa;- par mtmflz in

H cmsc.4s1ra9. Exam afim” chaining men araivme, ma husband

has paid the maimemnw @1ar1y. Sud: being 3:3 mm, the eniy

6*’

paint tn be wnsidmead is, whatha” 22390:. pm wmtid as

far the mnirxtmazm of rawdmt-wife?

7. Adtnifimiy, the mammm¢¢jwras §z;Vu:eLm:;z ‘ *
Rx.30£ pm in the yea 1989. Is: the 362%. figs;
filed 2:; ms, comiahxg ma e§a:LLgr mg, mzwqazgbe use

pmbahle mmsinam paygbie byv;h§’j§:z§§c»agd his back-
yeamd? mniutemy, me” as Mmager in
Kaum-2 Inmmagj-ggé L Evan ma-

mzimem, gm he Ems ham getting
may mm-arm, we are oftha
ma.uzmam’ as an higher sick.

nfiittmagfiimr to be cmzfidaed is, if diverrce: has been

an we game} that the wife is mding

in: em claim mamtamn’ $7 86 fat as this

_ _ ui8I:¢ ‘t..”f3t1§€3:2’fl¢£1. me u-ia! Gaurt has givm a categorim! fincfmg
VA *5.’ ihc Wife haadébem hcznerabiy scgxitted by the Magffl in twe
% cam hmm by the pailaea. Tha wife has alI%ad um trim

xaié m*%:a1’ma.§ am: Wm Inga! again: hm’ a ma ixzaanw offlza

hudmrci himmlfas fire cfiicials ofthe caamzamfi poiiaa axiom wm

«V

vwyaiamtohirn. maddifimmfiagmawfiahadfilafimfi

ciaiming damages far rnaiicimxz fl1 aging
The dacree of divorea gmmd is onty «paste. In H * .
we are sf thfi minim that the trial V

mainmmee «::fE.s.2,&3€3¢’~ par mcgnfi’:

my merit in iha maul. V .

9. In theremit. mgweax

…. ” ,

Indie