High Court Karnataka High Court

Sofilal S/O Mohd Mashak Sab Mulla vs Khasimbi W/O Sofilal Mulla on 16 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sofilal S/O Mohd Mashak Sab Mulla vs Khasimbi W/O Sofilal Mulla on 16 July, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
» V "  Khasimbi,
A  "  I
~. 'Aged':'26 years,
A .900: Agri.- _3t Labour

 AA : I_)isti"'Guli3a1'ga.
V  Salccma, 'F

 D/o.SofiIal Mafia,
Aged: about 8 years, I

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA 

DATED: THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUL? Zimsy
BEFORE  k  F" *
THE HONBLE MR.Jus'~m:.EA   K ''

CRIMINAL PETITGN NQ.36%4§  «   

BETWEEN: A      "

S/o.Mohd.Mashak    V. 

Age: about 30 years " 'A  7_  }   

()cc:Agri. Snbabour,  '  v_ V -'  ._

R/o.Jamk11arxrii.Tq:Jcv2*'  I   1
Bist:   g   A A  .. PETITIONER

(By Srikfgércsii 

Rgogxanachandi
Tqi' Jewargi,

Minor thmugh next
Friend, respondent 1

._ afier a panchayat was held. The
L’ “l 1″‘ respondent in the presence of a

t'<£L'LE»"" ,
' Thesnefore, she is not entitled to maixztelxeance'./'£1

R / odanakhandi,
T9: Jewaze, Q
Dist: Gufiarga. ..

(By Sri.Subhas Mylapur, Govt. Pleader)

This cum’ 11131′ petition is fixed”. hi

to set aside the order dated 13.6.2003 in Pejriiion
No.6/O1 on the fite of the JMFC, Jewargi and set aside
the order dated 10.13.2005″; ” by ‘the; S.J.’,
Gulbarga, in CrI.RP No.85/2t’§03.’ ‘ * ”

This c:rimmal’ pesiean, ¢§m_ 5;. g for hose fig, this day,
the Court made the fdflowiflg; é} » A. % _

The petifieitef is 1″ respondent and
father of 2nd xfespefident. and neglected to
Z ‘1″=F.I7cSPOndent for herself and also
on filed petition under Section 125
the petition, inter alia,

ceiatenniing it? had deserted him and she

M Fm

1

2. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of “eviclence

has held that petitioner had in treated 1-t “and

she had filed Criminal Case in c.c.No.2o4/2®1. f§iA§”fi§::¢e’s

punishable under Section 1-4;’?’;m ‘498t-Q31, j

Petitioner having contended If’
respondent has failed Vhthg’
‘I’n’al Judge mnsidcyigg for-. sfiiysismnce of
respondents I and of petitioner

awarded and 2 at the rate of

RS350] — per mofiflx _ _ ‘

3. The jpeufion;Ver- u piefeimil Criminal Revision

on rwappmciation of

eszidence iheforaer passed by Trial Court.

– When are (%(5:lCuI’I’CIli findings of the Trial Ccurt and
Such findings am accorded on proper

” of evidence. Therefore, I do not any

ix,

grounds to interfere with the order passed”: :’by 4.

hclow.

Accordingly, _ j>’e1;itio1§”i§
directed to send baclgthc at ctspyoif order to

the Trial Court.

Sd/-u
Judge