Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    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

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    SUNITHA @ REKHA v. D KARIBASAVANAGOUDA
    (Jan 21, 2020)