Prema vs The Maintanance Tribunal on 1 February, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ... MYSORE - 570010
... PETITIONER
(By Sri. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY S, ADV.,)
AND :
1. THE MAINTANANCE TRIBUNAL
AND THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, MYSORE - 570010
2. SMT. MADHUSHREE
suit schedule properties to her mother-in-law for her maintanance. The difference arose between the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law and allegations
which requires consideration is that the respondents have raised the question of maintanability of these appeals by filing an application and lengthy arguments are addressed
that in an application under Section 24 of the Act no maintanance pendente lite could be awarded to the children; and (2) if such maintenance
revision petition filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code and its maintanability has been not satisfactorily explained by the revision petitioners. Of course
1384/3 dated 21-12-1976 filed by Husensab is maintanable?
8. For better understanding of the matter, it would be necessary to reproduce
claim made by the respondent.
5. As regards the quantum of maintanance awarded by the learned Magistrate, it is in evidence that the petitioner received
CONSEQUENTLY HOLD THE PETITION, PENDING
BEFORE THE R3 AS NOT MAINTANABLE.
THE JUDGMENT IN THIS PETITION HAVING
BEEN RESERVED ON 10/06/2014
SAGAR S
S/O SRI SEKAR K
WORKING AS MAINTANER PEENYA DEPOT BMRCL
PEENYA BENGALURU - 560058
(PETITIONER NO.3 IS DELETED
SAGAR S
S/O SRI SEKAR K
WORKING AS MAINTANER PEENYA DEPOT BMRCL
PEENYA BENGALURU - 560058
(PETITIONER NO.3 IS DELETED
