Karnataka High Court
C F Leo Joseph vs V D Sijy on 5 January, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
Bench: Ajit J Gunjal
mmmm M?' MWNAEAKA mfifi mmnmm H56" CGURV 0? KARNATAKA HIGH COUR3" OF KARNATAKA MG!-I COUR? OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT 1 $2 fifi E-fiiéi-E $23233? Q? '§£fiaREi&T§;E{.z% A? E5§§x'$:.V*{V:».:3f§:§;VV: % §§::*§;:"; °'7i"§§§S $333 3% my gy sA§mgy*%j§§1%V§ ' ' §%E§i§RE 31$ imrmaa mggzj s';*j:&:",;¢E? 333%?' @::%§£J2%k:; *% mg? ?§:?:*§:@z§ :m.1s§?é=ét_:§ _$fl駧i?{§:£»F{,§} r<s 2 n h§§§ A383?
§£%T §§;3$ fifififi $§3§§___ _ , t 1 §fi?T§§%§%§§E;_?E§§$_§E§§Rw§%§? F §}w:?%»:£g;agE;
§A§$ALeE§5§§§£§a_ ifiy $ri:§§%§fiR'R&¥g';§¥;? 2 §§é.§$R$§ ggagavzgg asggm ggygagg ':a,"=fi§%§§§§: Efifikfi §$§§hE x_$i§§§E?E£ §&$%E E§$?§ '. aygega §?$$::
33% §ES?§§§E§?
'°I§"§~§ES '£?.E'? ?$'§'"§?E§;%§a§ E3 Efiigfifi L??? §3=Z§ 23? SE' '?'§'§E {7Ii}%§§"?E?§§€'Z:$'§ Q? E3 EOURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ADE KAKNAIAKA ruun uuulu ur m-mu.-..r....~ . .. 5 seeking permancnt a_'u'mony would disckose that the wife has sought maintenance at the rate of Rs.5,00D[~ fo_I.'.__ hex-self and a sum of Rs.3,0DO/- my the child, mm of Rs.8,000l- for herself and for t.h¢ Erned Fanrily Judge was alive foum that the application is re=quIr¢€1_ ' part, inasmuch as, interim a..+_.'_ Ra.5,000[- p.m. was tho reaporuient wife. Family Judge denies fibow detrain us. Thaa mate:-131' pn S that the pet1tnJ' ' near its With the present days' cast of a%gg¢%%afL%Rg.5,oo0/- an interim mam' tcnancaa tn Having mgard In the an-ntmxtinnn urged, I am of View that the impugned order does not warrant / _ - __- - _.-.-n xo.¢\ILl\I lf\ l\ll'|f\"'I Q3."