High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Vijayaprakash Puttegowda vs Smt Sowmya on 15 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Vijayaprakash Puttegowda vs Smt Sowmya on 15 January, 2009
Author: N.Kumar
EH THE men wear or xaanxrmm AT    ' 

Dated this the 15th day of January,  '  Z
BEFORE  '_  T   _     
ma Honrnnn rm. JI_J8TI C'E E._ - * V' .

Writ Pefition No. 9933»;&-2098   
writ Pctition 'ré.g;95:§g 9.5.2  1' GM' --F{3]

Writ Pefitien No.  0f $3608    " 
BETWEEN:        

STE Vijiayapltakasiii' §§£I}:tcg%3Wda ' ' .
Sjo Puttcgcfwda ' V  * >   '
Aged about 33 years' V '  ._   
Fast Track Indi.9,P\.'t. L'i*r1.; ; ~ V 
K-6]-4, Erandwafifi " ' 
  

,'*Ya<3.1:\»  %%%%% 

2?" F103;" A .4 
Pulng    .,    ...Petitioncr

_' v(Jii?2y%  H (3 Shivaramu, Advocate)

%.""Smf+'% $6Wm:ra

'* ._  Agz:d'..a"b<mt 30 years
 R'/a amass, pt Fioor

  'T Eiimgadéahalli Further Extension _
  Nagar
 Aflzxngaiore -~ 560 032 ...R¢sp0ndent

(By Sri R L Patil, Acmmtc} 



This Writ Petitien is filed under Articles 226  
the Constitution of India, praying it) quash thc_=:1:1deI"-  V.

18-6~2€)O8 passed by the learned I! Additional"-._Pri;"Ji1dg'c,.T

Faxuily Court, at Bangalore on LA 1~;g,3 in McV'19~n1re=:--F.

Writ Pefition No. 952g of 2{)()8 iC?§.5rFfl}  
BETWEEN;  " '

Smt. Sowmya.

W] 0 Sri Vijayaprajkaah

Aged about 30 years   " «
Now shekemd at #386, 1s¥.,V--»..,  V
Matadahalli Fnrtlltmj Extension
Bangalore-5:50       ,..Petitio11er

._ --  Advocate)

AND:

 Puttegowda    ..... 

Pzged' abdtzt  years

 Manasgér  " 
Fast1.'r:aa;:kTS¢itvéas:e.se1viL~es Pvt. Ltd.,

' "  VA Muifinafionai 
  E{«6[4,  Firgoriérandwane Society
 Yash 
" " --«  -- 41 1   Respondent

(By Sxi H G Shivaramu, Advocate)

‘i’his Writ Partition is filed under Articles 225 and 227 of

hfikjnstihiticaxa Qf India, praying to modify the order dated 18»
~E:~,£2008 marked as Amixexure-D to the writ petition awarding
the mouihiy maiumnanct: from Rs.15,GOO{ – in Rs.4{},OO0] – and

La}

increasing the: litigation expenses from

£350,000; -.

Thaw Writ Partitions coming on far u x

‘B’ Group this day, the Court made thy: fofipiving: *
o g :3 E RI, ‘ ‘

In these two Writ Pcfifiofis _fhsfl saxiit tI:1e’~

Family Court awaxtiing i3ltt%IiJ31..ii}”i3i11i’.€’5Ila]1.¢&:t§’€!iTA R§3E15,000[–
to the wife and a suzmfi -.. £s3wa1fis iifigation
expenses is chaflcnggd. féairen up together
for C.3GI1SidEI’afiQI:K., fzéillmon order.
2′ Ft)? xtzf; mnvaniancc, the parties are
referred to 35%; gr: to in WP. No. 9933/2003.
Vijayaprakash Puttczgawda filed a
13(1)(1A} of the Hindu Marriage Act in
M.C, 1′?§b. 2’1’5;,{:2%i:at::§5 on the me of the learned cm} Judge (SI.

flDn), “for dissolution of the maniage against the

V’ “‘,I’€1’§AAf)(K.”P”3”:3,,l.’Zi€Iv.”1i. The Apex Court has tzransfcrred the saifi case to

‘ 9;’ zemlmizxered as MC No, 1944/ 2007.

..fft’:::2{=; i I’ Aadiaonaz Pr}. Civil Judge, Family Court, Bangalore City

La/

pefiticmer owns a shoppmg compkzx and he is gt;-,tti$1g

those cimumstanmszs award of Rs.15,0G0[- is 911 ?-ide. J _

As the respondent is without any _j
needs medical expenses, at icasj; a_ suxfr –R3.25,:€){)!E:)’/- “$53

awarded as maintcnanon.

7′. From the it is «slicer that
tbs nlarriage between the:1,3*a:%i§::s Petitioner is
residing in at Bangalore.

Pefifionefs V’ ” Vfiovcrnment employee.
03:: his jaminvensioll of Rs.:’:’S.0O0}– and
residing prcnliscs. Pefitionerfis brother

is 131a1f;’i.’3xiLAa1:14′{ia’22t”:.?¢:’.IiVV$iett.ie?>cl«§’ . The material on mmd disclascs

V’ that “A:1§.g i{i=s:3j;:43&11dc11«f””§§’fis working. After she shifiacd her

and because of the pcndency of the

divdmé ‘;§.he is unable ta sccum any other employment.

‘..__V”i7hercfo1*c§_A§:ht: has no independent income of ram own. She is

£10111 various ailments which require immediate

and suficicnt money ta take can: of her health.

, jAnnexurc–E is the sahxy cerizfica’ ts pmducmtl which is not in

dispute. It shows at one place that the {ma} earning of the
by

‘egéeefidnsj dietiiissed.

appreciation of the entire materia} on record, taking a

Rs.50,0{}O/ — as the salary of the petitioner has _
a sum f R$.15,£}O()/ » pending disposal of
merits. it is to be remembered that

paid {:3 see that the Wife do pat a

awaldeé during the pendency of net the
law that merely because a amount,
the wife szhcz-uid be pad’ the higher This maxim’

maintenance :is§« during the

pendency ‘bf’ ” iii: themferm, award of
Rs.1:”$,O0{)ii’/_-« fir the case in a jast amount

which has Court. Themfom, I do not find

“a1:iy mega: eiihei bf Writ Petition. Hence, both the wm

Sd/-

Iudge