Smt Mamatha Hiremath vs Gangadhar P Hiremath on 24 September, 2010

_ 1 _
IN TI IE I---1I(}I"I CO U RT 01*' .KARNATAKA AT E'32'~\N(3ALORE

Ii)/\'l'E1) TI--{IS TH E 24"' DAY OF SEP'1'I.*L1VII'3ER 2010

PRESENT

"rm: I~ION'I3I.I.E MR..JUST}CE K.I,.MAN.II§NA'rL1. 

AN I')

T111?) 1«;<_)N*I31,I'«: MR.JUS'I'ICI<1N.SA'fYANAi%£X§*AN3§   "

M.F.A.N().727Il /2094 {r3f(:}j; "
BETWEIEN: A "

Sm' MAMATHA HIREMATH _
W/O GANGADHAR HIREMATH   
AGED 35     
R/O. NO. 196, LAVANYA" ~

'EST I'w--;:>A, ADV
'Iv:/S. E'E?A§vIIL,fa ASS(:;(:IA'i'ES }

        

 '   GAi..)};L»-'§f1'a:. ADV)

{V



,2-

TI'--{IS MFA IS I'*"'II.Ii3i'I) 13/ S 19(1) 0}" TI--{E FC ACT R/W'
SEC. 28 OF THE I:{INI.)U .M.AI'{RIAG}_5l ACT AGAINST T H E
.}UI)(}ME3N'I" AND DI£CR.I*1I'*I DT. 8.9.0-4 PASSED IN
1\/I.C.NO.1078/98 ON 'E'i-"IE FILE OF '.1'HI*3 i ADDL. PRL.
JUDGE. FAMILY (3()URT, I3ANGALC)RE, ALLOWTNG _.Tl*IE
I¥'E'.I'IT ION I' 1LE{.) BY T1113 RESP()ND£*lNT HEREINT _S

13{l)(ia) ()1? THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT I>RAYi:<1'(;f"L-<1fQ'

GRANT A l')EC'REEC OF I)1V()RCE.

TE-IIS APPEAL COMING om FOR 1r1;R'r§<I."§«_7,"Rf"»H1s:;§;R.:N%3' " 
'1'H1E-3 DAY. MANJUNATI-I ._1., I)I£I.IVEE?:ED--TH 1; FQLIe.<;'ré.v1'I+J{;«: 

.}UI)G1\/iIEN'1' '.__  A

The iegaiity and c01~rcéf thehthe 'V

I Aciditioxlal Prineipai J1u'1.ge, Faiii1}--yne_:Cei1ert. E3éfigal0fe. dated

8.9.2004 in Mc.No.:o78}' £998" g;f';§§1t1{1g'I%_;:§c'ree of divorce in

favour fef t'es§i)onéi%:f1t ' 'thereby"""diss0iving the marriage
soier11ni:§e(i'beturee13.V"te!1e' {)_;ir1-;';e_s. at Bangaiore on 19.2.1995 at

Sri.r1ivasa K.a1ya;r1a. ~Me1r1i:apéi is (tailed in quesfjon in this

-"'~.,a1)1>eKr:i1.  ..  ..... 

V   :arg11i11g the matter, the learned Counsel for

the 2'-'1'1M)«[)(=,lI'z1';3:t__  a rnmno s1,a1:i.1'1g that the appeal flied by

 her m:ay'7.be ciisrrtissed in regard to the gremt of ciivorce.

A Q}-'£ew'eyer, in the eilemged circumstances. she requests the

*  (?'Q11.:-t to consider the grani of mair1tenaI1ee payable to the



-3-

minor son. in the ctireuirisizinees, we have heard the learned
Counsel for the partries on ti 1e question of I'I1€iirlt(.'I1Z~}I1('.€ to be
awa.1'('le(i iI1 favour of the minor S-5()I'1 Mancleep G.i~Iire1nat;h {Ci}

§Viar1_j1math.

.3. The appellant is a Deritist. The l'€S[)O{!{lél1E~wV_i;L).,.§iF;___ _

Engineer. Their Iiiarriage was Solemnised 011'13-..2'.'199.5.'~AI£'!_ ' 

the wedlock they have :1 son by narrie Mar1}:leep{.'

(G? Manjmiath. Now the cthilii  wi'Lh"'t?1e  ?';'1j'e
appellant had filed MC3.E\Io.€S£33/vi99x8 t,;r1(1e'r~Se(:i.iorr';9 of the
I---Iirirlu Marriage Act M21 _Afo1' resiitiivution of

(IOHjl1g€1l"I'i§hl:,.SV';:: S'ii:'i}§'1af'{y>,"--f.h€ iiusbland had filed a petition
for grzim, " of' '(ii%.{'(;rrVi5etiti"or1 filed"widerA8ect:i.on 9 came to be dismissed. The

 p€:iti1i_v()I.1._vfileClJi3y_ the husbaml for grant of divorce on the

:;§i*oi:i;:3lr'l "oi;«V"_<:;v;.-giellhtyii came to be allowed. While granting the

cieeree. oitlivvziree the triai (.'.c):..1rt, has fixed the r.naint:er12ur1ce at

_uiiir.:-.,i_raie'" Rs.i,8()O/~ pm. Since the app<:liaI.1i, is not

_'  C.l_1éiiiei'3gi11g the decree of divorce and as she has give up the

(Q ,,



-4,

said eozitentiori. the only point, to be cons-:.i(iere(:l is, what. is

the maintenance payable by the father to the minor son'?

4. On perusal of the records, parties have not. letiri

cogent evidence in regard to the income of the  'bf 

the II1()€,.h£:3I'. However, the doeurnente availableiIi"t.l1e'--.reC01'cl' "

show that the appellant. who is a (iémtist. f1as".se:t.A'iipa. A'

of her own. by availing the bank 1'oan~ ariciytiiat 'she: is
discharging the loan. But no u"i'e.y'id«enceV"is_ let-I iii', by the
respondent to show his 'ir"a§_ozn_v;§ arid liiisleapaeityhito pay the

maintenance. It has come in Vthe ‘e\?icle..r_1ee.’;t!(1a_t the child has

been a in Bangalore known as
Pearl Valley ‘-Vidyap ~se’ho0l and the school fees and

otherVt.hiI1gs””itsei£ _(.’.rJIIA1t§ to” about Rs.2,500/– to R:-3.3.000/~

“~.p.I1″i-…_ ‘:’C(_)’IlSld(A’/l’il’lg “tih’e;’V same and Considering the other

y_e>é:p(at’1are of the opinion that the respondent has to

pay’ :11 1’r10ritli_lye:: mainte.r1a11(:e of Rs.5,0()O/~ p.m., from the

‘gdate ofcieeree of (livoree and he shall pay the maintenance at

fl_’t’Pf1e rate o1’Rs.1,8()()/– p.z’n., frorn the date ofpet.itio:.1 till date

‘ of gieeree. of (fivoree.

6.4

-5-

5. Ac:c0rc’1i;1giy, the a;);.><éa}. is allowed in part by

(t<)1'1i'1r:z1i.n,_e; the (ié-'(',I'E?t-' of (iivr(:(= grarltmi. by the Court. ‘below.

The e.r1t:.2’re 9.1*1’ears S1121}! be pz1.i(:1 by the resp()1’1cient within six

weeks from today.

Sdf ; i 7     %

]u(1:g3&* vV%'   _

     

Nd/-