IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2471 OF 2016 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
MARIGOUDA, S/O THAMMEGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O CHAMALAPURA VILLAGE, TQ H.D.KOTE, DISTRICT: MYSORE – 571 125.
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR RAIKOTE, ADV.,) AND:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA, ALLEGED WIFE OF MARIGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 2. KUM. JYOTHI, D/O GOWRAMMA, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF K.SALUNDI VILLAGE, HAMPAPURA HOBLI, H.D.KOTE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 125.
(R1 AND R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) … PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE – B PASSED BY THE PRL. FAMILY COURT AT MYSURU IN C.MISC.NO.571/2012 DATED 21.11.2015 AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Praveen Kumar Raikote, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 21.11.2015 in C. Misc. No.571/2012, by which Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month to Respondent No.1 and awarded a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month to the Respondent No.2 from the date of the petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an agricultural labourer and not having means of income to pay the aforesaid amount as directed by the Family Court to the respondents.
4. I have considered submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. A Bench of this Court, by an ad-interim order dated 23.03.2016, had directed stay of execution of the impugned order subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- to the Respondent No.1 and Rs.2,500/- to the Respondent No.2. Subsequently, the aforesaid order was modified by order dated 31.10.2018, insofar as it relates to Respondent No.2 and it was directed that the Respondent No.2 is not entitled to maintenance of Rs.2,500/- as she is already married on 23.03.2016.
6. In view of the fact that the petitioner is agricultural labourer and no document is on record to prove income of the petitioner, it is directed that the respondent No.1 alone shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month from the petitioner and the impugned order dated 21.11.2015 insofar as maintenance awarded pertaining to Respondent No.2 is quashed as the Respondent No.2 has already married on 23.03.2016.
Accordingly, petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-