- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SUNITHA @ REKHA v. D KARIBASAVANAGOUDA
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21STDAY OF JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B. V. NAGARATHNA
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.9640 of 2018 (MC)
BETWEEN :
SUNITHA @ REKHA W/O.D.KARIBASAVANAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT C/O.SRI.J.KOTRESHAPPA
SRI.GURU KOTRESHWARA NILAYA
ANJENEYA BADAVANE, KOTTURU
KUDLIGI TALUK
BELLARY DISTRICT - 583 134. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.T.JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
D.KARIBASAVANAGOUDA
S/O.D.MAHARUDRAGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT UCHHANGIDURGA
VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK
DAVANGERE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
2
20.08.2018 REGARDING THE PERMANENT ALIMONY AND
MAINTENANCE OF RS.25,000/- P.M. AND ENHANCE THE
SAME BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ETC.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Office has raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal.
2. Appellant's counsel submits that though the petition filed by the husband under Section 13(1) (ia) and 13(1) (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is dismissed, appellant is aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.8 which was filed under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for maintenance. The said application has been partly allowed and a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded towards permanent alimony and maintenance. Being aggrieved, the wife has preferred this appeal.
3. We have perused the impugned judgment. It is noted that the petition filed by the respondent -
3
husband seeking decree of divorce has been dismissed. However, if the appellant herein is aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.8, the appellant could seek the said relief, in the event the appeal filed by the respondent - husband being allowed in MFA No.8293/2018 and the decree of divorce being granted. Further, in the appeal filed by the respondent - husband, the appellant - wife herein is also entitled to seek interim maintenance, if so advised.
4. In the circumstances, reserving the aforesaid liberty to the appellant - wife, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable as this appeal assails an order passed on the interim application.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VMB
Alert