Sri K Adinarayana Gupta vs K Sudakara on 28 January, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri K Adinarayana Gupta vs K Sudakara on 28 January, 2011

Bench: Jawad Rahim

IN THE HIGH CGURT CF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 28?" DAY OF JANUARY, ZO;.1:, 'E..

BEFORE

THE HUMBLE MR. JUSTICE JAwAQ.RA_fR3_M%v%,J.:j: ._ 1

RPFC NO. 109 OE 2Oioj;.  * = T'
BETWEEN:   '

1. SR1 K.AO1NARAvANAT_c;E'u,RTA  '
S/O +<.vENs<ATAppA " 
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.  

sMT.K.BHAG1R"AfHA   ; E V
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS j A .  _
W/O i<.AOI__NAR.AYAm.A GLf§'TA I A '

BO__T.H"TH§,P.E"3'Ejfl_QN.ER_S ARE RESIOING AT
NO;87,: 4?' CR,O4S£-3,,3?-i.D..MA'£N',
_ _S_QUA.M'IN1§;;,_LA".%QLI_}",   « 
 KOz\zA.AR<ur~e':,4TE,_,EA§\iGA:..ORE ~ 62
1 "   "  %    PETITIONERS

(BY SRi'1:,A',31NA..RASkA.r§iA.,_'¢u'RTA « PARTY IN PERSON)

AND :

  .. ..... ..

A  AOEO"A,BOOT_ 46 YEARS,
 as/O-s:R1V'R,'A.O':NARAYANA GUWA

 R,+*AT NOi,';?:'/A/407
E.,E.s:5=rx:Ew TOWN, YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE A 52

,'A;.rx:.MAN3uNA"m,
 *Ar;3EO ABOUT A: YEARS,

 S/G SR1 KADINARAYANA GUPTA
r R/AT NC3.406, 15? CROSS,

10"" MAIN, DOLLARS CGLONY,
J.P.NAGAR IV STAGE,
SANGALORE -A 78

 

 



L.)

3r KRAMANANDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/D SR1 KADINARAYANA GUPTA
R/AT MP/11. 19' CROSS, MANJUNATHA
LAYOUT, ARAKERE MICO LAYQUT
BANGALORE -- 78

*>i<3i.-'.

_.PC§.§$}E£1_E :\iTS_ V' J 

RPFC FILED U/S 19(4) OF"k;Ev{E:"FA'§/311;?'._CO.URT--:'ACT',~_
AGAINST THE ORDER f3A"E*ED_ €)4--08¥2010'v"F"CAS_SE9_§ OE'~1__>
CRL.MISS.116/2009 PASSED BY THE I11-A-ADQL}: PAL. JUDGE,

FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, DiS.AA;{sVS1NG-THE PETITION.

THIS PETITION IS.. C_"QM'iNC3{§Esi._'r'?ﬁ}R_>ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE "E"i~€;E' :=O.LLc;>\Az1r~s--Oi;.+' 

  VA 1  
This ;Ta$éfi _Ei"O1%i""U'3n_d:®'r«.iO'S.AéCtEan %"1§9{4) of the Famiiy Court
Act is'Aderected'"'éjg.§'iAn$t'A-.fr.---e' Order dated O4-O8--2O1O in

C.MEsc.NO.VVi;§5,'2C50§3 V'Onﬁne file Of iearned III Additionai

_.. PrEnci§:pSvi"'3udgS"'--atVv___§a,ngaiOre dismissing the petition for

 d¢fau§z;..-.D  

 hfihe petiticner No.1 is party in person,' The

V' :f2re5S:3O.y3dé'nts are Served but unrepresented.

3. Heard.

\"""'-~ .
 A
<%'ésA ~"°
\ ..



4. The contextual facts are:

The petitioners (parents) fiied an appiicationheirédier

Section 125 Cr.F>.C. before the triaf Court in.'4"E--Z,  

116/2009 seeking an order to dire_(:tt_he 

sons to pay to them Rs.2O,O0O/§'1.épe'_rt'rnonttffor

them and a sum of Rs§t1p,"E.Q,OGE3)'~V_' tey1verd.s"""'medicaf"V

treatment and other basic e:><p.e'nse's--;..LA In tresponsie to the
notice of the petition theres'p_oVnden"tsV:d_entered appearance
and resisted the p'et__ition';''' '  V a

5._ ____  ﬁpeti.ti.orhers was that they had
sacrificed tt1eirVi'i'Vfej"-t:o'rb'rErne"":Jp their children (respondents)

who are their 'sons, best education and comfort in iife they gVreur:Vg_p&é.to be abfe citizens. The reientiess eFfj<3«r.ts them resulted in respondents acquiring edd{_'1"c-atieyn. and engaged themselves in gainfuf .avece5't§en7..« Ethey are efﬁuent and have reguéar source of "'ﬂ§zi§c'e;ssr:e. the respondent No.1 who is eider sen is an Officer Bank posted at Coreerate Office an fv%.G.Roae, t 'rt-.ﬁB'"'e?'ngaiore drawing salary er" R3.45,008;"~, In addition, he is wdrawing other service benefits and perks. He has deserted them and started living separeteiy with his wife and children. The respondent N02 the second son, obtained bacheior degree in Computer Science and is a vSo:futv}ifare Engineer and is empleyed with M/s KYOCERE Private Limited earning Rs.2.2S lakhs per to perks and other service benefite.

third son, who is a businesstman and has i:fic'oVm:e of:';moi'e°; than Rs.1.25 Eakhs per m0nt'Vh;ﬁ_'t'h_e who are parents are senior maintain themselves. Despite 't.he'i_r-.veeeriific'e'vV,h'in§i,_!---tie to bring the resgaondentséeiaé'§{§,~i:t?.|'fVfe.vgzaénci out of their earnings ptopiierties, the respondents misused' theitV.'oVot'je_itg'i!!»'étiti""ges'ture and have cared little for their sacriift;eis,V »ih}§_;.»e willfuliy neglected them apart frontaﬁaiuising n3en.taE ttirmoii and harassment. Petitiener No.1 had acquired immovabie house and sites from his earnings and g had 4t::id"erte§<fen work of construction and in one of the sites. ':f§3xt:'ieemetiieien the Petitiener Neii gifted the pmpserty te the riefsieeindent N63 in February 2002, The respondent Ne.2 has celiected over R328 iakhe frem the petitierters misusing 'Q / 'sf and disposing other properties. The respondent No.2 exhibited a violent conduct and rowdiness. He assaulted Petitioner N01 and compelled him to dispose of_;th'e.4'_S~i.te, Perforce Petitioner No.1 had to sell the site in and entire money was misused bye,'respo_n'd'e"nt'_jNo';»2}.VThVe'"

respondents further compelled theV'i~pet:2;t'i:.>nerii»t_o"~part:i'ti:o=n'th.e property which were self acqullired prop-ert;r._ they are rendered destitutes.

7. The g3etitioni"'was"A re'si_gted..V'.b§:r'the respondents, but before heldf;theiuirnpugned order has been passed 'd.iVs':ri1i«:s:sing.,_t'he"'peti_tlon.f The petitioner in person is that he had engaged.tlie'"ser'i}ices of a Lawyer, who did not the peltitmnin the right earnest. He was not the dates of hearing or to take adjournment in 't'h_e'%court;': this regard he submits that for one year he ll'-,.r.4_"was E.,El'2"rC3Vb'lE3 to attend the case due to his sickness, He was "e_ufferi"i_ig frdin severai aiirnents and thereafter he came to that the petition is dismissed for default. The fpetitioner has averred illness as a cause for his default in X I 33 '1 / (7 appearance in proceedings in Crl. Misc. i\io.:1.16/2009. He would submit that only for three hearing dates did not appear but the trial Court dismissed the petition for 'default. He had brought to the notice of the court pain which he had suffered because attitude of the respondents. At one pQl.htjj.e'f.ieti}he--:he wife had several immovable pi*O4_pei'ti'éS!b'tlt no;-vi'-igheyr ieift in lurch because of the conducif'~~.of the V"resA_ponde'nts. The respondents had turnevi/irt.i}all_;}Vl"agaVihst to them causing immense hardship. He pointed that.'th'ei.rV"survivaI itself is difficuit.

9'-V iiii 'hégardiliiiillg ifi'«i§l'|1Cie3i._"Vi:5ovsit§on of the respondents he had 'E;-rot-gyit--out:_jthlat._:t'i:ey are well settled in life, due to the effortsef_petition'ers""themseives. Despite earning so .,i.wel'ii.ja:ndA--.iwe»lIn piaced""i"nlife they are not giving any money for c__t:i'iai_r' isi isvt.ei"i..:4i'ri.s.feT;,c triai Ceurt has not considered this aspect sand has"; noticed the absence of the petitioners and '*ilf'di.srréissed the petition for defaait. I am satisfied that the order impugned was not jiistified in the fact situation, / 11, In the resuit, the impugned order is set aside, The Cri. Misc. No.116/2009 is restored to its eriginai fiie. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trviai-..;Copi't and trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

The petitioner further _seei<s._ an orde_r;_:bve'* directing payment of maintena'ric:é'-to them_.V_ "£.a.=m«V"peVrspaded to accept his request,,th..e triadi"'C'o.i,i4rtVi"irs_Adirectedto ensure that request made by of interim reiief is cons:i.d«er:e'd_ to expedite the proceedings! V":iC(5;'L:i:rt.- ' the petitioners and iappheavtiaefore the trial Ceurt on 15~o2»2:o--1;i,i'ao'n triai Court would take the case on_vfiiexa'iidV_:proceed.iifiitther. ' "i;fi.1i:tti.;tii4e's:ev"observation the petition is disposed of. 3&5; 333?

E€§§Qé§

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court