High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Venkatappa vs Smt Varalakshmamma on 27 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkatappa vs Smt Varalakshmamma on 27 July, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

'DATED THIS THE 2-'?'1"fi my OF JULY 2009 
BEFORE " V

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH 'B,_€A1Z>ji-  "' M  --  H

cmvmw. PETITIOH zco;4s3,1?L@10'i '%%?  V:   

BETWEEN:

S1f3'..Venkatappa

S /0 Eats MuI1i1ve4n§katappa,

Aged 55 years, Teacher,

Residing at iéocligehalli,  «. .

Kasaba Hobli, Gubbi'I'aiuk,' '  ' __ V.     _

District Tumkur. V M "   j'  P:mT:oNER

(By Sri.G.Ba1a  siaasiitff AM?)  AA 

AND:

1 snix.va.ra IaV..   %
W/o~Ve11katfappa_j,~._  
Aged 4S_yea1*s; H 7 -- '

__ 2 

 -  Venkata:dpa,~ *
g _'Afgcd ,ji54jr:_€;1rs,

' A Dies Venimiiappa,
"'Age<§'?' years,

n T 2  minors
V ' rsspmsented by first respondent

” ~- Smt.’v'”ara1akahmamma.

All am residing at Oballi,
Kasaba Hobli,
Gubbi ‘ra_1uk,
{District Tumkur. .. RESPONDENTS

{Respondents served)

-g-

This Cxinzinal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
graying to set aside the 01631′ éatcd. 202.2066 in C:r1__.RP.P¥o.
233/()5 on the file of the of 13.0., FTC-H’I, T’umk”ur the
order da.tcd.9.11.20€}5 in C.Iv!isc.No. 15102 on thc”.fiia “-9fv_<the
JMFCL, Gubbi be dismissefi and this Cr1.P. be allowed -{mats
flamughout. _

This Petition coming on for admission .

made the foilowing:

ogp§Rg”‘

Petitioner — husband of thé”afé:=.po11de;3.f_ f€o;’.1 ‘ d
question the order passeiiby t13i锑Fénf$t VV”1’1fe;_1<:14: Tumkur
dated 29*-11 February 'Revision Petifion

No.233/2005, _ V'o'I:ei£V:r passed in

2. __’mai:ntcna;n.oc petition before the

iearmzd fitfgfaliia seeking maintenance from the

_ pefitioifgeif. Then’ “iea;j;;¢d Magistrate 01:1 consideration of the

‘V__e§*i{:I:*:_rz_Vce oxdered for maintenance of Rs.500/- each per

Ashwini and Divya — respondents-2

V . and : §*he1t=.}ifi.v oxdcr of ganfing maintenance was called in
.4 xsigestion Vvbfiefore the rcvisional court. Revisional court aiso

_’ the same.

3. Learned Coungel for the peititioncr submits that, the

” ” fiefifioncr is not against gxanting of maintenance, but the