This petition ceming on for admission, " Court made the foilowing: QRDER The chaiienga in this pet.§tie.n is V'm_"the erdV7eV;f 22.05.2008 passed by the ¥earné'd.V":3"?V Adé'iti._§nv$§ Eéamiiy Court Judge, Bangaiore and:.1M;%_}sc.;~$c$.~'1.rc$;.i2%aos, évééarding maintenance amgmjt -of En favour of the reaspondeni." ' ' A 2. théiuwiitifle petiticmer/husbané married §i:g =rés;;V;:éfia?:§e_%it/§§f%~fre~~~ on 09.93.1976. fie respondent hLé':f_ fi:e.é;- tkvaerinwetition in the Lower Ceurt
é’g;–aEns*£:’:’tr:e~. ¢et3tianér””a$vard§ng rrtaintenamta amount of
which was apposed by the
petE£Eo_r§er. v.{i¢::r;Vs’iT;:ler§ng the evidence 0? the parties and tha
corgtéiwtiens, the impugrzafi orcier awarding the
;’:2r§irzt;~érri’ance ef Rs.6,60G/–~ has been pas-zseé.
F 3. Heard Sri K.H.Ramu, Eearrzed ceuaseé for the
‘gfietitioner ané perused the impugned order. The teamed
cozmsei fer the petitioner firstiy contended that, there is rm
jzsstificatien fer the respondent to Eive aefiarately and céaim
\
the maintenance amount. Secondly, he conte§£éee..’_’:§§:e*.:.-__
the awaremg of maintenance amount at R.3;fi,.:{fz{}{)’;’~~.–: pare’
menth, when the petfiziener has né=,A_avQ.cé;ti6*r:_e:fic}- 4h’e’$-…_’;€e.1v..’
eaming capacity, is iiiegak ané.th4§_.rdEyé, ‘t_£}’e Lewef’
not appreciates} the evidence’ ee_ i’e§:or§§”–%;f§:T’tzheijpreeer
perspective, resuiting the i.%%1″1′;:..§;g,;fi’e:i_ order being
erreneousiy passed.
4. **** “*E£y*–.Ehe”pe$%t§Eoner, he has married
one SmtfiifnfiaiaV:ee.’LseceVf§’de..:§§§’ife.’ Out of the saie wedlack,
he has c:§1i§dV reg§. v.AeceVrd.»Ehg.._”~~io the petitéener, respendent is
.~-éhe an:dA””t%zey_.a=veere at? Ewing together. ‘%”he very
‘”.fec:f§”¥;§i;at–v._§he:’«eetitioner has: married enether woman and
hes.Vé’c§1i!eVreé?§j–3’tefeugh her. Further, accerding re the
gpet§t%oi raer;V..VE§’e. was paying Rs.S,Q60/~ per moeth as
.;f¥3aA§ritce;ftaE’§”ce ta the respendent, which fact indicates that,
–§.tb’e’:je’ rm harmony between the parties. in View of the
“fipp5efét§ener marrying ancther weman, the respenéent és
‘4 justified Er: iivieg seearateiy.
X
5. Since, R :5 mt the case of the petiti§;.;’;é§*”§§}a;*7t’v»..
the raspendent is 3:3 earning person and has*.§§%c:r§§:éL ii}: ‘ ”
maintain herseif and aise the fair-:t”‘i;e’2as’:
himself has paid to the resgscndent R$.::1§_gé’§6}¥’;f§er.,:né}§’t§éA V’T”
as mainterzancej, the ciairzi ‘-.. :”¥’:,f-xde “s”‘a:>;r’ -.payf%:..é%§’i” xéf
maintenance Es justified. _
6, The oniy g’g’rc>zJi’:f:d;._”=..whVi’.:§3′:’ survive for
censideratEcn_i.s:’-.1: ‘ ” “” H
f’f’§¥he:t;’é:,’«:.;;:}; ¢ _a Wé£'(i§i}g__ Gfi maitzteiaamie at
Rs.6,'{380f~« _;:;§é§ mVe::;ii}2% bjygfh-c:_ L{3″‘€’a5’€I’ Caurt is justified?
3?. Afic._<;:h:3§nf§' _t'{).§fi£;::_"_.:JétitEerzer, ha has two houses
_..V.beari::«g:§g."v '?%!o.32",Ia._. __§;}t§! 136/C, bath situated at
IA'Q$§fi§nthV;®§ar,:VE.a.nga§ore 5680235', csmprising cf gmizszé
aééei §§:%s;t""FéV%§_a:»r,"Ti;;M1Ech proaerty was parchaseci by him?
beér:g 'ar} "5e;{n';z'§';oyee of ETI factery. 803: the parties have
: '";,a,§V:a::s:d4_.Aex?VE€i.§nce before the Lower Coam, wmch has mean
4'.'_'&<::;3'i:– ;:45E¥:¥é;=.A:red by it. The adméssicm cf the petitioner that, he
VT .. 'u's'é§:§ is pay Rs.S,§90;'—- per manta as maintenance to the
sreapandent, shaws that he had the\:apacity to pay