Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Lalitha vs Sri B G Krishna Murthy, B.Sc. B.Ed on 26 September, 2022

                                        M.F.A.8262/2015

                             1

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

                          PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

                           AND

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH

 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8262/2015 (FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT.LALITHA
W/O B.G.KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT: C/O NAGABHUSHANA RAO
NO.83, 3RD CROSS, 5TH MAIN
SHANKARNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 096                        ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.D.GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SRI.B.G.KRISHNA MURTHY, B.SC., B.ED.
S/O LATE B.GOVINDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
WORKING AS ASST. HEAD MATER
AT GUJARATHI HIGH SCHOOL
NEXT TO UPPARPET POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 053

R/AT: NO.75, ITI LAYOUT
BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 075                      ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.VENKATESH R BHAGAT, ADVOCATE)
                                                               M.F.A.8262/2015

                                           2

          THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 19(1) OF FAMILY COURT ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 20.08.2015 PASSED IN MISC.NO.27 OF 2015
ON      THE     FILE    OF   THE     PRINCIPAL       JUDGE,   FAMILY   COURT,
BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE MISC. PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT.


          THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:



                                     JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time on the ground that the appellant has not filed affidavit regarding assets and liabilities of herself and respondent as contemplated in the judgment in Rajnesh vs. Neha1.

2. This is an appeal questioning the adequacy of the permanent alimony granted to the appellant. In Rajnesh's case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if the parties fail to file the affidavit, the Court has to draw necessary inference. Such non filing of the affidavit by the appellant leads to adverse inference against her. The appellant is not 1 AIR 2021 SC 569 M.F.A.8262/2015 3 interested in prosecuting the appeal. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Sd/-

JUDGE akc