it: THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATA§_(g-'i'*«'4«' "
cmcurr BENCH AT naanwggx A " A
DATED THIS THE rrrfi DAY
E3$?QRE «- %
TI-IE HON'BLE MR.Ji{$r1cE J
CRIMINAL
BEIWEEN:
1. Smt.Ma1lafW5*._ ~
Age: 28
R]O.KI3Ii1ba§'=§;I_1}fl vifiagef ~ A "
New feaiciirag C-[d~.Tippu ' -n"n..'~~--
. _'
R/O, Tq
(By 'S1-i s..~€;.VM*axafi_amavssr, Adv.)
_____
' Haafimaiimpm
Age:-36
' Tq 35.
Rf viflaee
.. . Rcspendcnt
" 'f A A -C.K.Nm1:ndra, may
This1ev$iao11peti1ion'mfiMun:icr%fianoi'
u praying to sctnaafie the impugaed otcier dated
26.'?.2908passedbjrthcPrl. D'mt.&Sesai9n:sCom't,
Dharwati in Cd. Rev. Petition N£>.2[2006 and thereby
oonfmn the (mic: passad by the Pr}. Civil Judge {Jr.Dn.} as
Prl. JMFC Court, Dhmwad in
23.12.2004. o
This revision petition on ..£u;~
day,thc Courtmadc the follow'mg':, '
oaofia
The first pefiflooér_ ~. respondent and
second pcfitionor is petajoner ané
respondent, and negbcted to
mam’ tain A uopemoner foer herself and
also filed a petition u/3.125
Cr.P.(3 ix;’Gr1;Mioo’;§¥o;49j£999. The mm court hm held that
msgondenf’ fiéglootcd and refused to mam’ tain
and mam’ inenanoe of Rs.350f– p.m to
R3250] – p.m to second petitioner.
Tifiérofom, respondent was before that District Court in
Rcxfision” Petition No.305/2001. it appears, during the
” gieazfoncy of revision petzifimn, both the pmhies % a jokmt
….:§1emo and requested the court to cfiosc the matter.
A niia ,th ttc losed.
coo gly ema rwasc H,
the first
Thcrcaficr, ‘A
Cr1.Misc.No.200/2002 for ”
of the order passed in Revision .. :1′
The learned trial judge thaf 3:1et;
settled before the Ada}£1tii…1′?.8.’20f3′.3~A’ 1:he1efoIe,
matter can be {Sessions judge
accepted the ozdcr passed
by the the pcfifimners are
”
taken up for heaving, learned
Counsel fofmadc available copy of joint memo
3-.8.2(}02 parties on 17.8.2002. As could be
jqint memo, matter had not been rchred to
Jaint memo does not bear the signatures of
Conciiiéitflrs. Above all, the intnxest of minor petifioxicr has
“:. ‘ taken can: of.
It appears, petitioner-wife had ageed to join
zespondent~ht1sband, on a promise held out by rcspondcxzm
husband that he would take proper care of petitioners. It
‘I
Q»/\~~.4″‘”””Q*
:4:
appeals tho mspondcnt-husbaml had broken
Therefore, the petitioner-wife filed appiirxatioimax .,
maintenance in terms of
Crl.Misc.No.49]1999. Assmnmg foi*§ ‘tvhi1cV lscaiaongr-V. _
had agreed to join rcspondent’ 4bo’£:’ozwo tho ‘lgok and a
joint memo was filed failed’ to
dischargta his obfigatio_I1 t9 and child,
. éve1jxr” ‘ the order of
mam’ h1;mc’;Y§o;’49/ 1999.
judge without considering all
these » the pctifion. From the
dojgiijments mawgioavéflaiak before the court, it is not clam’ as
‘ ..f;_I;c joint memo was accepted before thc rams’ ions}
._ thc lok adalath. In these circumstances,
order cannot be sustamed’ .
V 4. in the result, petition is accepted. The smpugmd
oidcr is set aside. The mattcr is remanded to the learned
Sessions judge for rcconsidezation in accordance with law.
mg C_,@Wpw.«L.
:5:
However, it is made clear that obscrva.t__ic§f: # 4′
tins’ order shall not be read as c:;pb1*cssic_:x’1;”’0f:::'(31c)’21110;””v”£1 ”
nmrits of the case.