Dismissed

Sri Govindaraju v. Smt Kariyamma @ Kamala

Karnataka HC4 Jan 2023RPFC/54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984, against an order upholding monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000 granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C., finding no illegality or infirmity.

What did the court decide?

The review petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act, 1984 is dismissed. The Family Court order upholding maintenance is sustained.

Sri Govindaraju Vs Smt Kariyamma @ Kamala — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

RPFC NO.54/2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH AGED 53 YEARS BBMP WORKER, R/AT 4TH 'B' CROSS BYATARAYANAPURA, AMRUTHAHALLY YELAHANKA DIVISION BENGALURU-560 092.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI GANGARAJU C., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

SMT. KARIYAMMA @ KAMALA W/O. GOVINDARAJU D/O. LATE D.R. LAKSHMAIAH AGED 49 YEARS R/AT TUMAKURU CMC WARD NO.6 DIBBUR EXTENTION AND AT POST TUMAKURU-572 106.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S.M., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, 1984 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED

¶16

¶17

08.09.2021 PASSED IN CRL.MISC NO.131/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶18

THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The respondent filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC before the Family Court concerned stating that she is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner herein and the petitioner has neglected to maintain her. The Family Court by the impugned order granted monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent, against which, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶21

The Family Court concerned taking into account that the respondent is working in the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- p.m. as salary and also owning land bearing Sy.No.51 measuring 1 acre 01 gunta and having a residential house and that, the evidence on record establishes that the petitioner has deliberately neglected to maintain the respondent, has granted the monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- p.m. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity

¶22

¶23

in the impugned order passed by the Family Court concerned. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petition is dismissed.

¶26

In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.1/2022 does not

¶27

survive for consideration.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

bkm

Sri Govindaraju v. Smt Kariyamma @ Kamala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Govindaraju v. Smt Kariyamma @ Kamala

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

Sri. Suvalal Vs State of Karnataka

Vijaya Kumar @ Vijay Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajaya Marodia Vs Shivaramaiah K M

Smt v K Bharathi Vs Smt v Gayathridevi

Sri Uttham Kumar Melanta Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Dharmasai Vs B H Ramachandra