Sri Govindaraju vs Smt Kariyamma @ Kamala on 4 January, 2023

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Govindaraju vs Smt Kariyamma @ Kamala on 4 January, 2023

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                           1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                     RPFC NO.54/2022

BETWEEN:

SRI GOVINDARAJU
S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED 53 YEARS
BBMP WORKER, R/AT 4TH 'B' CROSS
BYATARAYANAPURA, AMRUTHAHALLY
YELAHANKA DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 092.

                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI GANGARAJU C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. KARIYAMMA @ KAMALA
W/O. GOVINDARAJU
D/O. LATE D.R. LAKSHMAIAH
AGED 49 YEARS
R/AT TUMAKURU CMC WARD NO.6
DIBBUR EXTENTION AND AT POST
TUMAKURU-572 106.
                                          ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S.M., ADVOCATE)

     THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE
FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED
                                 2



08.09.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.131/2021 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR
MAINTENANCE.

    THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC before the Family Court concerned stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and the petitioner has neglected to maintain her. The Family Court by the impugned order granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent, against which, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. The Family Court concerned taking into account that the respondent is working in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. as salary and also owning land bearing Sy.No.51 measuring 1 acre 01 gunta and having a residential house and that, the evidence on record establishes that the petitioner has deliberately neglected to maintain the respondent, has granted the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity 3 in the impugned order passed by the Family Court concerned. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER Petition is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2022 does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

JUDGE bkm

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court