Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Sibghathulla S/O Abdul Basith vs Syed Sumaya Sultana on 25 March, 2011
MEAG Midget CORUINT C98 BARR ATS at ett ee WEEE Be LDES ES AP PLA Pe af aay ci © KGED ABOUT 28 28 "R/O NO.44, 1074 ORO (BY 8K Es, GsJAVEED APMED EEA PASSED BY THE 2.0. OF M IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT ee - DATED THIS THE 25™ DAY OF MARCH 201 1 BEPOEE THE DON DLE MR. JUSTICE BLN. KESHAY AMARA RAVAN NAL PETITION NO.618/2011 | D SIBGHATHULLA 8/0 o ABDUL} ABTS, : AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O NO.SOI/A, 127H CROSS, NORTH E T, WLR. MOHAL LULA... MYSORE-S70 os, es (BY SRI tacintons SHE AR, ADV.) KANAKANAGAR, ©." NAGi BANGALORE-560 032. . HESPORDENT LM, ADY.) THIS CRL.PETITION I8 FILED U/8.482 OF CRP. G TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 8.112016 ECPO-VL BANGALORE Cry IN TS NO.21/2010 ABD COR THE ORDER DATED we ; Leh wt 8 ies ¥ iy % * 2 8 2 ge 8 EF & S 8 e & sg = e a po wont rs * again ae nt io . os ad. os f 4 Ei QF & gi adel sat a Borsa rn : ag " Sian ged # a oe ae ce ss gon = . ol 2 a = a % eS 2 8 fad 7 v¢ ie ; bs a eee : Py galore Wormert reepormient is the en 4 i ,e& oo oe eo vw & © = fF won) as kage 4 ae aa . see ss pat «4 a a Wet, - ; e meg we oi af * ce, ob a4 toe! a = ven ag . af a, . Sad 3 ¢ ' eed te, ied : " pel a sy Nee & se a Ae te it a ba &, (3 GF thug Se 7 ie cay i " ay ci a a - & a ie h a ; '- wha lng . a Puy # a a fag ciel Se ar oa cn i. a ed ~ Gg ra OS & 8 oO veg Oe oO ™ 8 % is ao '= we | & @ + 8 S " § 3B fon PL ee i atl _ i) Ps) "geal Ss 1] m Boga np = oe Ce nn © © a oan 8 2 2 § a. a ee ; ee ie ad ot o a 7 A ' fa ips oh : is « eet peel ie Fat od be re es o. e a <A a 's 2 7 foo = i oe q a . e a g 9 of £ . a 8 a fe 2 BB oA Be OR SR =| : _ ; = a cr B " Ay -
¥ ¢ feex or dat tee mnt?
Ls e ae ti G i P Pee Se tas = see as VES SReE i ED BAS USA.
THIS PAY, setiboner Fe ot fe <3 28 i OPE oe re, "
B® AD 4 ae pa lert ~ wil es ES 4 re a : - - . 8 Boe @ ; ' ry e GG e 1 3 ves ee as 4 *) ing taal e f es Fe De Q et ) ne Ge > « & 3 "ae se "2 ise A mp on - fa Se" "ial a Oe sn ag Mes ee: o mo ie : & es by o -. me a ~ SH Bod os... Bo Beg ee a "Se kt ow ¢ ml gs 5 : a oy Roe el S 2B 8 3 » Be S $ ge Eg F & :
7" ihe, 'ai fas - wt ak igen] so | 2) hey a u wo ; : on AB cf : i RS iy '2 om sf = r & 7 oh a ee ee ee ee ee ee ce Vas HB ag SPOOF "REO Ee Cr As ey Seth LO PALE BO Cok § ee Eee Pisa re ;
% +, ¥ of ey é "hot Haat Baa Ws atl cE wR S '7.
ge lle coniidering the prayer for eteay of the order by the 4 _Gr aeposit the maintenance at the rate of Re.3,000 'month, after hea before the Iglemic Court on 28.4.2010 ard aince then they seperately. The resporxlent fled petition urmder Section 12 of the Act seeking certain - reels. In the gawd 1 tien, she filed an. pplication : der Section 33 of the Aot seeki diteotion® to: the. ; "of € monthly mainte Upon service of notice, the pet titioner "opposed the said apmlcation.
3. After hes sing, both aid in ewercise uf "power rider 'Section 231) of the Act date of fhe p : Aiton ili the 0 dis posal of the case.
- onder was: assodied wy the petitioner before the Sessions Coust in Cela No, 26/2010 uncer Section 29 of Act. Though, at "the init , the Appellate Court Court, directed the petitioner herein to oay if-
both the parties, by the order CPP ARMA igen Ef iipugned im thie petition, tae learned Sex d@miseed the appeal arxl confirms the order of the e oy Trias WOLIPE.
ee 4, Aa noticed supra, the order impugned in this inte oaaider atic on ste ipeta tned Magistrate tak eteted in the petition az well as i the BEF the respomient-wile and lao aising into oe oe imeration che objections: fd by te petitioner herisin and having Para regard to the prevent day 'est of} AA ing, quantiiec thes interuince payable at the rate of Re .6,000/- per month. it 7 not in "dispute that the reapondent @ met geil but also t meuitein only regh sed re 7 two. yout o hildren aged about 4 and 1% yeara renpettive 'Thevefore, the quantum of mamitenance ordered at the cate of Re.6,000/- per month can not be 'tercrsl ag exceseive or irrational, S. lt ia the contention of the petitioner that he ve Gry oocupation or any source of moome, Ewe therefore, he ie not in a position to pay the quantum of maintenance as ordered by the court below.
6. However, it ig the contention of the rea pondent- wie thet the petihoner Six ig financially. sound andi he ig muting pusite and also owns properties fom. _ which be is getting Imcome of Ba.1,50, 9001 - per month, therefore, the petition Hled before tus ( Court cassailing 2 of fae court belzw i 8 , Biuoos end i is lable to be diamisged, 7, The petitioner hes not-placed any evidence with g egard to his income, On the other made by the resporident on sfidavit indicates that the Htionce henein hes curbat tel pecome. Uneer tre viutvlis fo entertain this petition, Theres fare, petifion mp demimeed.
8. Tt de open to the petitioner to urge all thy "grounds before the tral Court while conexiering the cer pek cs Oe = I be, ry = Ed i asi, G tre arrears fer TREMP Wg Dae LASSE LD See Peed Lee BARS Te WED HOTS VOMLVNaWM 4 4