Dismissed

Sri T Satisha v. Smt L Saroja

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2013CRL.RP/122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this case, the High Court of Karnataka rejected two revision petitions. The Criminal Revision Petition filed by a petitioner lawyer challenging the rejection of a relationship finding application was held not maintainable. The Criminal Petition seeking to quash proceedings based on an amendment order was also rejected as not fit for revision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners in both Crl.R.P. 122 of 2013 and Crl.P. 734 of 2013, were rejected as not maintainable/fit for revision.

Sri T Satisha Vs Smt L Saroja — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.122 of 2013

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No.734 of 2013

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

Sri. T. Satisha, Son of Late V. Tirumallaih, Aged about 46 years, Occupation: Law Practioner, No.613/1, Gangamma Temple Street, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore, MYSORE – 570 024. …PETITIONER COMMON

¶11

(By Shri. Rajashekhara Seeri, Advocate [absent] )

¶12

AND:

¶13

Smt. L. Saroja, Wife of Sri. E. Kumar, Aged about 48 years, Occupation: Law Practioner, No.3090, 7^th Cross,

¶14

¶15

Hampi Circle, 2^nd Stage, Vijayanagar, Mysore. …RESPONDENT COMMON

¶16

¶17

IN CRL.R.P.No.122 of 2013

¶18

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated 04.01.2013 passed on the application for amendment of petition pending on the file of Family Court, Mysore in Criminal Misc. No.266 of 2012 and direct the court below to give finding on the relationship of the petitioner and respondent at the preliminary stage itself.

¶19

IN CRL.P.No.734 of 2013

¶20

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire proceedings pending before the Family Court, Mysore in Crl.Misc.No.266 of 2012 and consequently direct the court below to take appropriate action against the respondent.

¶21

These petitions coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The Counsel for the petitioner has remained absent. The office has raised an objection regarding maintainability.

¶25

The petitioner in Crl.RP 122/2013 is a legal

¶26

practitioner. It is alleged that the respondent had engaged his services as a Counsel and ultimately had filed a petition claiming that the petitioner was her husband and had claimed maintenance. The petitioner having filed an application seeking that there be a preliminary finding as to the relationship between the parties, the court has rejected the application. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.

¶27

The office has rightly raised the objection. It is for the

¶28

petitioner to defend himself in the pending petition. The petition Crl.RP 122/2013 is rejected as not maintainable.

¶29

¶30

In Crl.P.734/2013, the petitioner has challenged the

¶31

application for amendment filed by the respondent, which was allowed by the Family Court.

¶32

Again, it is not a fit case for consideration in revision.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition in Crl.P.734/2013 is rejected.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri T Satisha v. Smt L Saroja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Satisha v. Smt L Saroja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madegowda @ Mada Vs the State by

Sri Kemparaju Vs Shobha K W/O Kemparaju

Y. Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt B N Sumithra Vs M/S Vidya Seva Credit

Govinda Vs Venilla

Prasanna Kumar @ Devva Vs the State of Karnataka