IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.N;T<ESHAVANA4RA--$/AN'A_'_V'vs, :'
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL N(E)"..3_'{}40 OF"'2Q(A)Z: A
BETWEEN :
1.
Smt MAHADEVAMMA" ' '-
w/o RANGASHAMAIAH,"
AGED 47 YEA_RS, A _ A
R/o.KALLA.MBE!,,VLA AT PCv'ST,°
AND H0BLI';sIRA.-;TALu_K;--.._ A A A
TUMKLJR DIs"3'RIcT-»57'2'i135;-~' V
" , 2 A APPELLANT
(By sriix HAN.LJMAA{Te+A'RA:V'APPA, ADVOCATE)
AND :
RAfAEGASHAMA'E.AVH _
S/O ERAMALLAPPA}
[ AGED 5.7uYE.A__RS,
A }NOERKI.NG As;scHooL
. TEACH'E_R-._A'T'HPBS,
i--i_;JNJANAL, VILLAGE,
AND PosT,KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
s1RA_T;o.LuK,Now AT KOTTI VILLAGE,
A GIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT--572 135.
ERAMALLAPPA
{Es/0 DODDARANGAPPA,
@
AGED MAJOR, AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YARAGUNTE VILLAGE,
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK,
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572135.
3. MALLAPPA
S/O ERAMALLAPPA I
AGED MAJOR, AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YARAGUNTE VILLAGE; _
KALLAMBELLA HOBLI,
SIRA TALUK, I
TUMKUR DISTRICT~5_72135,.------ __
4. RAJANNA
S/O ERAMALLAPPA I
AGED MAJOR, _AG_RICFJLT'URE,_ A
R/O. YARAG!Ji\:T|g."VIL!.,AGE}
KALLAMBELLA I
SIRA TALUK,.j »
TUMKL_IR_ DI~STRI{;T:57_21_35}
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri PA’TEL4.D’KAVREGOvVD_’A,V ADVOCATE FOR C/R1)
THISLRSA FI”L’E_lVD:V U/:’5.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE
5’J’uDGi~vI’ENT;._AND DECREE DT.1.10.2007 PASSED IN
7R.A.N~Q.244/’2.OO5~-,ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND
CONFI”R.MIN’GfT_H’E”JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT.5.7.2OOS
RD’-._.v_PASSED”IN _O.S.,NO.172/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE (3R.DN) AND JMFC, SIRA.
frHIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
TIRE CQURT DELIVERED THE FOE_LOWING:~ M
the undivided 1/4″‘ share of her husband in all the.-.j_oint
family properties.
3. The suit was resisted ..by».the it
denying the allegations. The 15″ defenidiaiiivt
he has neither iil–treated thei._p’iagi%ntifi”‘nor .ne’glei¢te’d’ her. i’ ‘
He also denied the allegation tih«at”:he”‘i»sA.iea’d”in§;–..adi.iiterous
life with one ft:h’e.Vpiaintiff. He
further contendgfiflrgiatithe plaintiff is
presently residing by raising loan
for instalments to the
financiaiigIn.stitot’io’n..j:ti’o’rfs–‘:.:i/vhere he has raised loan. He
further con’te_ndeci”t_hat ‘ne_”_.’iporchased 4 acres 3 guntas of
agrigyifiigigraa iangrlgyjitriggginame of the plaintiff and she has
said property and apart from that
an~ot’iier purchased in the name of the plaintiff
V and t’hat~._’fhedpiaintiff is enjoying all those properties as
plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of
–A–dA//rnyaiqnteinance as sought in the suit.
S. I have heard Sri K.Hanumantharayappa, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the
records secured from the Courts below.
6. Having heard the learned counsel :peryusai”l
of the records secured from the
view that this appeal does not involve any que”stio’n”of”‘:la””w
muchless substantial questio..n’i’ of warranting
interference by this Cou:rt;..
plaintiffgis._tho’l”l’fiG’i$ili>,:gg”wedded -‘wife of the 15’ defendant.
Both theiflouirtvs “eeloiN»« recorded concurrent findings
of fa=§:t” that th”‘e._V_h’o’use in which the plaintiff is presently
Vres.i_ding_Ei?ya.sA”constructed by the 19′ defendant by raising
}l’oa’n__yfro’n5″_~v.,Vthwe'”financial Institution and he is regularly
_ paying t.he’rhonthly instalments. Thus, the Courts below
found that the plaintiff has been residing in the house
..’_coVn’si:ructed by her husband and that she is not required to
b
pay any rental for the same. In addition, the Courts below
have further noticed that a portion of the said house’~als.o”i–s
capable of being let out to any other
rental income could be derived fro_r_n…that {;’ort’io–n’,. “‘I’t,’_\’_Nas,cu ”
also noticed by the Courts below that 1%{é_1*acré.r3_ 3
fertile land which was capab’:e__”o.f growing. and = C’
other crops was purchased defenclanff in the
name of the plaintiff has been in
possession and erjoyme’nt’:.of¥th’e._:sarneVandlllshe has been
deriving income ,’uT’hVerefore, both the
Courts below has provided
for all the and that the plaintiff is
deriving suf_ficieni: “i’ncorn’e”Vfrom the properties made
V availablle by her’ In that View of the matter, both
have held that the plaintiff is not entitled
fC,rrr_ivaint;e’n’ance. The Courts below have also
C if _ recordedv–._a’fin:ding of fact that the plaintiff has utterly failed
pr__ove”that she was subjected to harassment, cruelty
her husband is leading adulterous life. In the
&/
the Judgment of the Courts beiow. I find no merit E_n___this
appeai. Hence, this appeai is dismissed.
“TUDGE i
rsk