High Court Karnataka High Court

Tirakappa vs Premavati on 4 December, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Tirakappa vs Premavati on 4 December, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
 ma   

:8 THE HXGH Cfifiifi' 0%' KARNA"i'A§iA ciRc:;'I*:*«'?auEF'1§é~;§§ 
AT' EHARWAD  ---- -    
Dated this the 4*?» day of   
EEFUREQ ' _ x "
THE :~m1~t'nL1.«*: mR; .:r.I$TI(§E    
Writ Petition No. 8;82;§}:;s::»2eg3_é g'§§;m-_:::é<:§)3
Between: a « H .
Tirakappa     V
S] 0 Gurusidéapyag Malzigi I 
Age: 49 years   _ .  '
Oats: AgIiCu};é.ti1'é ~.   V' "
R/0 Ghantikcri C_ 

  . . ' .  'I .' _     
Dhaxwad Di$t1f'i=*::f.V    _ .« ...Petiii::11er

V   Magadum, Adm, fer
  Vigneshwat' S. Shasim', ficivocate)

'  f 0 "f'i1'ai€gpp$'1..M§:}1agi

Aggfi hbgfajbr , _ _ 
Occr. Housghaiifi '
R] 0 {}a;1£<i1{eri"

_   Hub1i ._
" ~   -- ..  }j)1:1.2;T:vcrax:{' vI)ist3:*ici  Respondent

(By Sri Sadiq N. Goodwaia, Afivocatrs)

This W’rif. Petition is filed under Axficles 226 and 122?’ cf

*the Constitution of inéia, pmying to Cali for the mcords in

R2″

Execution Case N::a.1’23/ 2{}(}4 on L115 file of Prf§;;’*’–€jiy-:.i’__:;§’L§fi§ge,
Snikxiiubfi, ” ” ~ “‘”= T’

This Writ Petifion cc:-ming 91,; 5.11
‘E’ group this day, the Court made rim fit:-]loWi11;g:”_~A ” ” ‘ .’ V’
cnnfifi’
The pstitjoner 11.:-1é~ A!,§.:i~.3_V Writ Petition the
order passed at fi.n.;1cxu1’é4’E?– against the

gaetitioner.

2; “”” ‘f1″a S ifiled a suit against the
pefifionér find” §).8. No. 52212002. After contest

the suit is Véa.c_; 1~c:c”:d’0_:_a 2603 awarding a sum 91:’ Rs.80()/ –

_ as ssxéagltlily’ In tlact 311:: also flied an appliicaticsn

g_u$dt; $¢cficfi”125 of H3: cwxzzx in <3: Efisc. $335 No.

i42}20¢fi an &fi{fik:ofthe.nwFc finfi:Coufi;£iubfi. patfie

V . 3130 an order came to be made an 633.2803

a ma:i;1teI1a3:1(:c of Rs.3{}{}j~ par month. "Z'1:1t:

-_p:*._t;ifiof16r filed an execution petitien in iiixecution ¥3’e'{iti-I311 N0.

” i2(}()4 fbr recovering the maintenance amount cine :0 her

‘ underihc fimnfie g1cxs.rw1 522/2002.Itis hzthe Sam

La/1

execution proceedirlgs an applgicaticn is fgicd by ‘i.i*:e ;3§§fi€i0iiF;;”

purp0r€:iI;g to be Lmrrler Section 47 magi with V’

CPC to stop decree holder from getfifié ‘t”‘::m(_
the decree holder exhaust the rcmccig” is»é.§;:gi}ab~1e’V
aitller in 0:1. Misc. :42/20od»§{‘m’ Q5. it ifié’
the said appiication vfhigtki ivlzich the

present Writ Petition is fiifiidf, ” ”

3; The 22% proceedings. He
has ffifocecciings. He has not
chosen net efibct is that he is
liable toggiafi 61″ the order passed in this Cr}.

Misc. pnaceééings VaV1i;d 1s» to pay 323.800] — in terms of the

‘~ ._ V(16Cfi:§:f:3’~p{iIS:S(“¢§i ix: ex’-.«’i’E suit. The Civil Ceurt aftm” taking inter

CQ1:{:§id.¢1’a1fi01§’vfi;ic—_mai:1te:;:1a11<:t: amaunt at the rate of Rs.3{}0j ~,

ha5s 'fiXe€1«'{E:£VA.T1'§faajntenance at £33,800/~ per month and,

rsspandemt is entitled to in a1} a sum of

' f£é.i,*-1..;{)(})V"'- as maintenance per month from the petitioner.

the Court beiow commrittcé no illegality in passing

impugned 01:16:' as both the OI'(1iC§"S-'5/d€CI'€€S can be

V executed sinzxuitaneousiy 232%; there is 1:10 law which prohibits

\/A

$11011 execution.

order is maczie out. Hence, the petition is &ismisssri.._: ” ‘

No ground to in’Uez”;fera with th(:

Cid} ~»