Buddha Prakash S/O Sabanna Tonasanalli vs Meenakshi W/O Buddha Prakash Anr on 28 November, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Buddha Prakash S/O Sabanna Tonasanalli vs Meenakshi W/O Buddha Prakash Anr on 28 November, 2012

Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar

                            -1-


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
              CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

     DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

                          BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR

                   R.P.F.C.No.552/2012

BETWEEN :

Buddha Prakash
S/o.Sabanna Tonasanalli
Aged 42 years
Occ: govt. employee
C/o.Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF) Head Constable
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road
New Delhi                          .. PETITIONER

(By Sri L.V.Chatnalkar, Adv.,)

AND :

1. Meenakshi
   W/o.Buddha Prakash
   Aged 29 years
   Occ: Beauty Parlour Business
   And Household
   R/o.H.No.156, III Phase, LIG
   Badepur Colony, Gulbarga
   Now residing
   C/o.Shivalingappa Korwar
   H.No.147, Pragati Colony
   (Labour Colony) Near Annarao
   Hebbal Kirana Shop
   Gulbarga-585 105
                             -2-



2. Vippasini
   D/o.Buddha Prakash
   Minor, Occ: Student
   U/G of respondent No.1

      This petition is filed under Section 397(1) of Cr.P.C.
by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble
Court to set aside the judgment and order dated 12.6.2012
of the District Judge, Family Court at Gulbarga in
Crl.Misc.No.127/2011.

     This petition coming on for orders, this day the Court
made the following:-


                        ORDER

Respondent No.1 is the wife of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is the daughter born out of the wedlock between petitioner and respondent No.1. The petitioner is working in Central Reserve Police Force. He is a Head Constable. Ex.D3 is the salary certificate of the petitioner herein for the month of January, 2012. His gross salary is Rs.22,485/-.

This petition is filed praying for reduction of quantum of maintenance as awarded by the Court below.

-3-

2. The Court below on facts has concluded that though the first respondent was running a beauty parlour in the name and style of Rubi Beauty Parlour, she has deposed that because of back ache, she has closed the said parlour. Therefore, the Family Court has concluded that it is unsafe to conclude that the first respondent is running a beauty parlour and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.

Be that as it may, having regard to the gross salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.22,485/- per month, an amount of Rs.4,500/- awarded in favour of the first respondent and Rs.2,500/- in favour of the second respondent towards maintenance, cannot be said to be on the higher side, more particularly when the petitioner not proved that respondent No.1 is having independent income.

-4-

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, petition fails and the same stands dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE *ck/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court