Smt Susheela P Bettanagouda vs The District Treasury Office on 3 August, 2009

“i”}1c pfiiiliun naming on for Freliminary Hearing is

‘ “‘V.Vv§£{31ii§i(i::rc<i fur finai disposal,

6

The Govtzmmeul Advocate: ii’+1='(i’ii’-“.-.-‘(.’J.’:}(.§._’ riciicg: {An ‘

behalf of 1371:: respondtznm.

H is stated that (ht: pt:§;i:.[iuner “is: um’:

I’. Bciianaguuda xvhu’ ~..g.ras “as a ‘Headmaster in
Gnvcmmcnl High Schoui, skated to have

rcfircd on ;Th£~: “€’3§IIIS to be the Idgaily

xwcddgéii P. Vii via»: her case that the marriage
was sufeaginégcd May i§67, according tu Hindu

diets ‘and cusiums;’ ”

1 ‘petitioner was estranged frum Bciianaguuda and

‘ii .i’$:’%’thc:.&y;§eé;ii_i_i«;.§ncr’s alisgaiiun that Bcilanaguuda had dcvelupsd

relaiicynsilip with other women and she: was not being iakcsn cam

“Accurdingiy, she was cunsiraincd it} prefer a uiaém in

_§l’x*iminaI Miscclianmus Nu.39x’2003, scathing maintenance

uniier Smiiun 125 iht: Code: :3? Criminai Procedure before {fuzz

C:3:;:’£ uf Lht; 31’viFC§ Lakrshmeshgara agaigsi hats” husband

entitled to see}: any such paymtmi as ciaimcd by

background, that the petitiuncr is before this V ii” i

5. The pctiiiuncr wuuid

appeared before the Lukadalat ‘{;iaim” » it

of the; petitioner for . éi£siA.._his iwouid be
aduquatc «evidence ts.) disckisi; was infant her

husband.

::irc’tii:ii:~i;tai.?1t:r:»V.L’i}i.=.t in Cri.Misu.Nu.2(}!20C42,
Bettaxiegciuda that the petitiurmr was his

lcgaily w£ii}d§c§~}.a%ifé,;=_iiS”‘§’et ancthtzr dcecumcnt which would

i irziiitiiitaiiiih “tag: being his legaity weaddcd wife. The

A : driven tn yet anuthtzr civil suit, tn cstablish that

She isgiii the iegaiiy wecidcd wife: 0.? Bcttanaguuda and to

it = mg b».-mix; due, tu km, which is withheid by the

iieiigytgndunts ii} the: ciisadvautagc ef the petitioner is iiitzrsfum a

cimumsiancc, which has warmatcd the yutitiuncr to appmach

this Court-

é

6. ‘While: the: Guvcmmsnl Advocate

the respundcnls art: hcipicsss in cast-.3 sutsh as Ehis;-. pmccgd pn” = .

the basis uf scanty material It) disclaim l3j;’ai..

wife of the dccaased Guvt:mni¢xi’1._scrxrani.V In “bf Lhcw V

name uf the petitioner, as 3 nom§n§:;e_ifi–»..£he nbminaiéirn column
of the service records £31’ I ‘{}1éL._;icg:;e:z;t§e%.i’*fizfizployca, ii is m:£

possible for ma; {he ptriiliuncr is the

legally ‘L§:£§:§ “”BzA”i:anaguuda. It is fllcmfurc
incumggni Q21 a decfaraiiun to this effect

from _1hc: Court, which would mumps] the

” V’ . respéinéfenis in acecdéfiu the ciaim.

‘ {rue that the respundcm can in law accept the

claim qf such as the pciiiimwr uni}! an produefiun {sf

insggrnvtirfibie duczsmcnis such as a, judgmcnl and decree by 3

‘.VC1i’vi*E’ Cuuri. daclaring her status the wife :3? the deceased

‘ ‘émpiuyttc, given the abject siattz ufpenury, and {he pciiiiuncfs

pitsading {hat them are Qihfifil’ documents such as Cuuri orders, £0

3

cstablish lhal she was infaci the Iegaily wtgdded w¥i’f*; cf

Bcflanagouda an that: basis which she is iaying claim

pension.

The rcspundcnls would not bé:,’pro:c:§£;(i§i:§g,

cunsidering the claim of the-..__pciiiVitunc’iz’ V121′

documcnis avaiiabh: which ma3_(_4_L:IisI:I_ rghprl judgémmt and
decree of 2: Civil Cuuft. Q3135 as the Icgaiiy
wedded wife urawmg¢uagT%;r.1:mrga,3;W ether claimants

in the 9

7. ‘Having fact that legit: Bttiianagoada has

dit.’:4′.§.i’f.’¥.VI?1 rezspundc:-ni; wouid hL>wc:vt:’r pmcwd

‘ ygiii;§!V£i1.g;:’*::a:;:””as_ to {hart being my other claims insofar as the

c.i=:~.*:f.*a,’i;’}V2Ab<.*vzA:¢:.1vfV§,i_._:~1V.?T_'£'Vr.Vtc to the family sf Bellaaaguuda are conccrnt.-d.

gzvz-cziiiicn stands disposed of; while [his wspondcnés are

' . to reconsider ihc re cscniaiiun cf {he -iiiiuncr an the
. _ P' P"

V’ ofdocumenls ihai art: aiready avaiiab1c_

E

The pciiiiencr is at liberty to prudnucfiéijyv .V

ducumcnis with her in support of t:a:;;t:T _ 1

J}