High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Yellawwa @ Prema vs Sri Suresh on 21 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Yellawwa @ Prema vs Sri Suresh on 21 October, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
in! THE men comm as KARNATAKA  

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWA§  '% %'  

DATED THIS THE 218'? DAY 0;? om03§ R%,2éb:3L"§ T'

B£:F<:m1=;»§;

THE HGNBLE MR.JUS'I?ICE RA;yi'MoHA?§.%.R'Ei3DY*:  %%

CRIMINAL REVISION PE'ffI'§ON Ncs.t7'53T 992953

BETWEEN:

1.

1; %

Sm YELLAWWA @     _
w/0 [)URG.APPAvBr'§NIA*r11,5;::evocATE)

 SR: .S1§§2;i§.sH
 sgio DURGAPPA BAme:A;3UR

fi.GED ABOUT 45 YEARS

 ~  ENGINEER OFFICE 0? THE .
"(DEPUTY GEHERAL MANAGER,

A" °0P'rIcA1, FIBER PROJECT BSNL,

EST' FLOOR DESM Bi}¥LE}§1"IG,
WDYANAGAR HUBLLS80032
R/AT IS!' FLOOR 23 DREAM PLAZA

SR} RAMESH
S/O DURGAPPA BANKAPUR
AGEXD ABOUT 49 YEARS,  mi

(V! V

 PE'I'I'I'¥fl\i ER



INDUSTRIAL PROMO'I'iON 0991333
059109 INIf)USI'RIES&COMMERCE _ .
DIST INDUSTRIES  
CENTRE HAVERI  .   T %
R/A PLOT N03

KANDAKUR comm?

SHABARINAGAR .   "  ;
KUSUGAL ROAD HuBLi--.__   REsPQHi}Er5'I*s"' %

(Sxi: S A DANE, ADVQCATE _.mR[_;1:2i)-»

CRLRP Fzwo _I_J]s_. V432 "~c>F'~...';@:«z.P.c BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR .fmE;: 1=>E'rmoNfER PRAYING THAT THIS'
HoN'BLr:. c(?;1J1=:i31f.i- MAY f3E3"'PLEASEI}.?I'O SET ASIDE THE
ORDER £}ATED1~...,.:;€a.3..2ooa_ FASSED IN cm. REVHSION
PETITION: _Noj.145/'£007?-.'i;%QN-.=TI~iE" FILE 09 THE PRL.
DIsTR1_<.:T Jupfiig, p:iAR_wAD.__,AN:) TO msmss THE SAID
REVISION 'i3*E:}r;*r1c:e1§.r. _ 

V. _'1'r{1s"'*P_ Errr:o7n;. VCCMING on FOR ORDERS, THIS
95,721, THE coumkmraa THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

V mother having lost hcr husband and WIICI1

be maintained by hcr two sons wen-piaced in

fiicd <3:-1. M:isc.No.204/ 2006 on the file of the I! Add},

Judge (Jr.Dn) 55 JMFC–!E, Dhazwad along with I.A.No,1

for interim maintenance at Rs.5,{)00/~– per month. That

application was oppo:-med by the 1*' mspondent hczein,

3%

received was insufficicnt keeping in mind the of

ailmtnts and the meaiical expenditure and

mticr dated 3»?-2007, directed the

Rs.1,5GOj- each per month as

petittiorgmr.

3. That oxder when in tjueétiufix Wtihe 1″

respondent in Crl. No. , the
Principal Sessions dated 29-03-

and reduced the mommy

1,sno/- to RS500/~.

.. m4} An éxarfiiggfion cf the order impugned discloses

.A t§;é..%z2;§v:sjona1 Court faiicd to apply its mind to all

before cencluding that the interim

descrvcs to bc reduced from Rs.1,500[- to

R2%.,S8Oi per month. I say so because, except far zeoozding a

‘ the 1″ respondent is empiayed as an Engineer in

~ -Erma: Sanchar Nigam Limitad (Bsrm, in receipt of

Rs.22,361/- per month as salary, very stxangely; in one

sentence, mcordcd a finding that it was the “duty to prqyistéle

order. The parties 330113 with their

dirccted to be present before

fihaxwad, on 14.1 1.2008, without ”