Karnataka High Court
Sri T B Ramaiah vs Smt Gangamma on 13 December, 2010
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1.3"' DAY OF DECEMBER 2O1._OV.VV_:x:V.._ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE JAWAD R.AH1:\?ii'_wv 5 '- RPFC.No..':.28[2O1.1'=3'1..:' A 22076--1 2Q:_i._.9. . j A ' BETWEEN SR1 T. B. RAMAIAH ._ S/O. LATE SR1 BETTAIAI-I" ~ -. AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS NO. 164, 10*" CROSS I BHARANIMATH;"BLQ_C'K t<ALYANNAG_A--R'-, ~ T.DASARAHALL1;: » 4 BANGAL%OR.E_:T.V56O1O5V7 '* " PETITIONER (BY SR1. .N513-..:SRE'EDH..A'R1 ADV.) > U N SMT..«5SAN~GAMMA'-.._ & "W/O;--- T. RAMAIAH' ''''' O' AGED A.I30.UT._ 65__ YEARS ' SBRE_SE1~:TLy P./A~ ;:>.c.NO. 673 CARE-OL1cE%.HTEAD QUARTERS MYS-D RE .RO_A..D 'VVBANGALORE -- 560018 RESPONDENT
KTHIS RPFC IS FILED U/S 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED: 18/O3/2010
-PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.313/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOV's/ING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.12S OF CR.P.C. ,."\ 1 5/3 2" . 1 ,/g1»-Ax E I T\J I MISC CVL 22076/10 FILED UNDER SEC.151 OF CI5C7.., R/W SEC.:19(4) OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING..:"TO-_ STAY THE EXECUTION AND OPERATION .OE.'_»ftH'.E, "
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 18.3.2010 PASSED e_Y*Tj'HEj'~---_ 3RD ADDL. PRL. FAMILY EUDGE AT BA_N_C§A-L.O'RE' IN CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.313/2.003. THIS RPFC AND MIsc.cvi..APi5I..IcATIoN'Ic0IéiIN:GCIii'gN:..:.r.1 FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, _THE 'COURT _.MADiE' THE» FOLLOWING:
0RDERh_ This petition is order dated 18.03.2010 in C.Misc.NQA..3.1.:3i{.200V3:Ih95°,thei.h,IiV'ie of the III Add!.Pr!.Judge4,H directing the petitioner: to atI2s.2,0o0/- p.m. to the respondenta' .
This pAeti'ti--on*is posted for admission. A
4.» fi';From the records, it is seen that the petitioner iS_"tAhe"'h.usband of the respondent who fiied petition under .'SecItion 125 of Cr.PC seeking maintenance on the plea that has been neglected at this advanced age. The petitioner entered contest and brought out that he is aged .-"'z
-'1. ~' .5 12 '~ ...-/ I 3, 2' Lad suffering from health problems which are reiated to his__old age and aiso certain other illness iike diabetes and"~.b:I'Ci(j'dVV pressure. He also brought out that C.Misc.450/2006 against his _two_ eo"n's*§§fiee'ekinge.,i l maintenance. That was allowed on c;'_ori~t'est=_a'nd" he::"iha'§-1:
been heicl entitied to receive Re,'2i,,5oo/'eel from son and R.s.500/-- from the s_econdVAs.o:n;'v.__Th_e grouinidyyiijrifpugned is that the respondent elder son R.Chandrashei<ar_:ara__d th'e're'for:t:_.V_:seh':e._ money for her urged is that spending lot of money for his "not in a position to pay maintenance," _ it teyarnedvvlllclounsel wouid submit that the trial note of the fact that petitioner himself is a'--recipientj'..~of maintenance from his sons and therefore, R.'"4"--._vV'Sl.lCl'i avvcperson cannot be subjected to an order of c."ma%.ntnenance to somebody eise. Though learned counsel ..v_v.oulct comment a lot on the reasoning of the learned trial V Judge hoiding petitioner responsibie to pay maintenance to
-4"
the second respondent, I am disinclined to entertain any of the contentions for the foilowing reasons.
6. As couid be seen from the proceedings_4»of"t_he. trial court, the respondent who is the wife of the»pe'ti'ti.oner§-'..___V" . had made serious allegation thatggthe petitio7ne'r"»hasq recently taken another women as his concrub'in_e'~calii'ng"~as:::_' his wife and living in aduitery wh'i'*€.h sheuhadeob§,ected.._HS3heA was not ailowed to live with yhEifi~._a.*id ther*efo_re,vV5she is forced to take sheiter in"the..h'oos.e;o4f'*--h'e:r'ie|der son. It is further noticed that th:e""petitio'nieir_is; receiving pension;V'VV'oi""ino_re from his earlier Governmv'eriVt'- yjVob..gV"'vA:_ijV'Be~siti»es', his two sons nameiy R.ChandVrashei<h_:ar'a.ndAE:3at'ish Kumar have been ordered to "':Rks.1.;eSOO/- pin'; "" and Rs.500/-- pm. respectively in the petitioner which augments to his income o.f~'F{s--.Ei,O0O/-- pm. Thus the petitioner is in x""r«.__Vi"ecegipt" Rs.8,000/-- pm. As against this fact, the A g:.'resp.0Iiident who is his wife is now stated to be staying with eicier son Chandrashekar.
'(,4 has been suffering from aiiments Eike diabetes, 8.!-'>,.oid age ailments. Except that there is no evidence on_rec'o_p9d..._ In the circumstances, E do not find any petition. Accordingly, the petition is_re_§ecteo''.'''''~'~--:''' \ in View of rejection. % of 4'vti§:e--._ matfi;A':petiti=oAn,oV"
Misc.Cvt.No.22076/2010 seekin"g{:ir:»terim'stay 7a1§c_ éiands rejected.
e tet* JUDGE V9/*