R Nagarathna W/O Doddachannaiah vs Dodda Channaiah on 1 September, 2009

[Cites 3, Cited by 4]

Karnataka High Court

R Nagarathna W/O Doddachannaiah vs Dodda Channaiah on 1 September, 2009

Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao

DATED THIS THE 18? DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

PRESENT

THE HON*BLE MR. JUSTICE §;,>S'REEDHARii':?A'0.  _  A 

AND

THE HOIWBLE MR. JUSTECEA1;I'.'EILLAPPA:._  .5;

M.F.A. N0. 18%

3v«.D§_.2o0S---  "A '3

M.F.A...  7-61.0E"-~.2»O05_

M.E.A. N0. 1873 OF 200;3m_;gA'_E.VV  A

I.

:.:.-*a''

BE'I'WEEN:~  

R. NAG-ARAAFHNA,'    f A-

w/Q._D'0.DD;A;;RA.NRA1AR--,.
AGED 3S3J§'_EARS, _ 

;<UMAR1 D.  
D /o.'D4oDDA CHANNAIAH,
AGED 13 YE./M-?.S,"». 

__:S11\»€E MINQR, V
~ _ -REP,  APPELLANT NO.1
~ . 3 NA'rD'RAL._ GUARDIAN.

 MA-STE_R  'MADHU,

'S/0. DQDDA CHANNAIAI-I,

'~.AGE'D -.11 YEARS,

SINCE MINOR,

S  REP; BY APPELLANT NO.I
" NATURAL GUARDEAN.

ALL. ARE R/AT NO2982,

47" CROSS, II STAGE,

%/



RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE --» 560 021.  
APPELLANTS, 
(BY SRI MR. KRISHNA MURTHY,ADvcOATES)  " "

ANDr

SRI DODDA CHANNAIAH, ,

AGE: MAJOR,   ,

WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER', 

KRISHNAIAI-INA» DODDI POST; V

VYAMBALLI HOBLI,

KANAKAPURA TALUK,  _

BANGALORE RURAL DI-STRICT'."" -. '   
'     A .'   "RESPONDENT

(BY SR1 VEERABHADRAIAH' '8a;'.-\SS»OCIA.'I'ES,-ADVOCATES) THIS MFA IS FILED"U,'S;-.j1--9(I;- 01"?' THE F'.C. ACT, AGAINST THE ';;,ORD'ER={ '"'DT." 23';I..I.;o2 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 150./'OO._ON..TI-IE..F.1LE_ OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE», , 'R;iARfI'IA: DECREEING THE SUIT DIREC'I'I.N_(}_ ,_R.ESI_.=>ON=E.ENT HEREIN TO PAY ENHANCED"?¢IAVINTENANCE AT THE RATE OF RS.1,000/-- PER MONTH AGAI:I~IST,,THE*c:LAIM OF RS. 1,500/-- PM. M.F'.A. NO";~761_I 4 BETQEEN;

_wV,/ O; DODDAQH~.f\NNIAH, AG*E_D ABO.I_JT.3~S YEARS, 'VEANGALORE --- 560021.

VA ff(BY E.SSKAY ASSOCIATES BY NO2982, .4THACROSS, 2NI)"---STAGE',*'RAJAJINAGAR, APPELLANT _ SR1»-1\.4T.R. KRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND:--

DODDACHANNAIAH, s /O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, HARIHARA VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

(BY SR1 M. VEERABHADRAIAH 85 A_s.s.OCIAT-Es; A'Dv.';) ' REsPO.NIiENT i C' i THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 19v'OFf'I'}L;E. f?AM3LY 'CICJ-1;I'"<?If ACT AGAENST THE JUDG_IVIENT7.. AND DECRE'E DT. 25.1.2005 PASSED IN MC NO.1«3_27/20.00 ONi'THE~F..IVLE3 OF -. ' THE 1sT ADDL. PRL. JIJIDGE, 'FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U,k'S 13 (1) (IA) AND (IB) OF THE I-;€iN_DU }.'a'1'ARl?_{1AGE_ ACT Ii'OR"DECREE OF DIVORCE. x These appeals are :On'i.i'fOri"'*hearing this day, SREEDHAR .I_., delivered the~.fO.1iOWir1g:

u?£&PG$9NT The 'Wife of the respondent have ﬁled a petition seeiking' mpa}.nte_nan"Ce. In the petition it is stated that .__the..':pfii'st.?IIspe11an't{w--ife)i was subjected tO dowry harassment crueplgtyivﬁpiiicomplaint was ﬁled against the respondent in Cr;NO;357.7fOr Committing the Offences punishable u/ s ',.498--i}i\,.. IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 Of the DP. Act. is further stated that the respondent during the I"9"enid;§ncy of the int bigamously married to one Manjula and he has two children in the wedlock. The respondent/husband contested the suit and denieidithe allegations of cruelty. The respondent alleged _ appellant developed illicit intimacy with because of illicit intimacy she deserted..tlfie respondent.

The appellant has 'i-ﬁx The respondent/ husband as and one witness DW2. The any credible evidence to illicit Ramaiah that she has company of the respon;v:lent."' l l husband ':_ti1as4..fil'ed..~~a petition seeking divorce on the groundl"'efpcrueltyA*--.ancIldesertion. The family court has petitiorrand granted decree on the ground of Cf". ielty and .Vdese:.'tion. The wife is in appeal. lvcvidence discloses that the Criminal complaint given the wife against the husband for divorce for dowry A '~?_*hAarassment and cruelty ended in acquittal. The wife in the ' cifiminal case has not deposed in support of her complaint. The fact of giving false complaint itself amounts to cruelty. Therefore the grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty. is sound and proper.

The wife has not let in evidence to provethep _p f marriage of husband with one fine i cruelty is not established. It is evidenAce'itI1at=.'.ft'i1e"~. petitioner who is a housewife and:Vresiding*-'lthat View, the grant of divorﬁ?' o¥'1t\"ih.$=I'j§»ff§,..}'1d ﬂCf)fV"desertion is sound and proper. The in evidence that she is not wil1ing'to despite his offer. The 113005 is accordingly dismissed. it " -,1:

husband ':iiasv~.altho--ugh secured divorce is bound to pay alimoiiy to.tl":--.e Ad-eslefted wife. in so far as the daughter ~._is concernefi. she'Vis'----cn'titled for maintenance until she gets 'marrie_dv«..and"~the son is concerned, he is entitled until he attains maj'oritj?.

' family court has granted maintenance at the rate if ~ pm. to each of the appellants. The wife and ' children are in appeal seeking enhancement. dz The appellants have produced the latest salary certiﬁcate of the respondent, which shows that he monthly salary of Rs.2000O/-- p.m. Keeping in the * needs of the appellants, wet». édireotl " " Athevu respondent] husband shall pay maitnteinancel'at"the Rs.2000/~ pm. to each of the'a_p'p.ellant's ;n*,,§l1'Vl.Rvs;,eoo0/%-- pm. from the date of theV____aip.pea_l_V till ~ The respondent shall continueitto in respect of ﬁrst appellant through out respect of the daughter of son, until he attains No.18'73/2003 is allowed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court