Sri Haneif vs Mrs Aaaysha on 24 February, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Haneif vs Mrs Aaaysha on 24 February, 2012

Bench: S.Abdul Nazeer

~1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN GALORE
DATED THIS THE 247TH DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2012
BEFORE a |
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NA? | 22ER-

WRIT PETITION No. 4928, (2012 GM- FC)

BETWEEN

SRI HANEIF,

S/O ADAM BEARY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT KUNTALIKE:
KARVY VILLAGE &POST..
BELTHANGADY T. ALUK,

D.K. po ee SOD ETTONER

(By-SRI sceacia ADV J

AND

1. MRS. "AAAYSHA, .
DBO MOHAMMAD BEARY
: "AGED ABOUT DOO YEARS

"KUM ZAKIA
. "D/O AAAYSE
. . AGED:ABOUT 13 YEARS,
«REP B¥Y.HER MOTHER 1ST PETITIONER

wb,

BOTH ARE R/O KEMMAI,
CHIKKAMUDNUR VILLAGE & POST
+ PU TTUR TALUK, D.K. .. RESPONDENTS

DAES

THES WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN NDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DT 18.1.12 PASSED 'BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
FTC PUTTUR D.K VIDE ANNX-A.

Oe eee



~ 2m

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOW? N G:

ORDER

The respondents have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking n maintenaice from the petitioner in a sum of 71,000/- per mont th in "ther favour. The said petition was opposed by the pe petitioner herein contending that he has already given na Talagq to the [st respondent. Negating . tie contention of the petitioner, the Court Detow has allowed the petition by order at 7 Annexure: B dated "22. 9.2008 granting maintenance of 2500 fo each to the respondents. The said order was challeiiged' by the petitioner in Crl.R.P. No.324/2008 before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast "Frack 'Court at Puttur. The Lower Appellate Court "dismissed the said petition by its order at Annexure-A dated 18. 1:2012. The petitioner has called in question

- a the vali dity of the said orders in this writ petition.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any justification to interfere with ~ Se the orders impugned in this petition. The trial Court on appreciation of the materials on record has held that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has 'divorced -

interference. The monthly niaiixtenance awarded by the courts below is also ot excessive. There is tio merit in this writ petition. It is accordinply.dismissed. No costs.

KLY/ >

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court