Chandrashekhar Nagappa Murgod vs Smt. Gouri Chandrashekhar Murgod
2022 Latest Caselaw 10760 Kant

                             -1-




                                     RPFC No. 100095 of 2017


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                           BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
       REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100095 OF 2017 (-)

BETWEEN:

    CHANDRASHEKHAR NAGAPPA MURGOD,
    AGE: 41 YEARS,OCC: BUSINESS NOW NIL,
    R/O: NAGAPPA NILAYA, KHANDAKAR GALLI,
    NEAR OLD TAHSILDAR OFFICE ROAD,
    GANDHI CHOWK, DHARWAD.


                                                  ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. S C HIREMATH.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

    SMT. GOURI CHANDRASHEKHAR MURGOD,
    AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
    R/O: DHARWAD NOW AT
    C/O. SURYAKANT REVANASIDDAPPA KITTUR,
    CTS NO.5735,PLOT NO.515,
    RAMATEERTH NAGAR,
    BELAGAVI-500016.


                                                ...RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. NIRMALA B.G., ADV., FOR SRI. PATIL N H., ADVOCATES)

      THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF THE    FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER        DATED
18/2/2017 IN CRL.MISC.NO.356/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE   FAMILY
COURT, BELAGAVI, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED           UNDER
SECTION 125 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY. THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
                             -2-




                                   RPFC No. 100095 of 2017


                          ORDER

There is no representation from the petitioner side.

Learned counsel for the respondent is present.

A perusal of the order-sheet would indicate that, the

petitioner was absent on the previous dates of hearing i.e.

on 09.11.2018 and on 16.11.2018. This Court has directed

the petitioner to deposit 50% of the maintenance amount

due. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for

the respondent that, the amount is not deposited.

Though the matter was called out in the morning

session as well in the afternoon session, there is no

representation from the petitioner side.

In that view of the matter, the petition is dismissed

for non-prosecution as the petitioner is not interested to

prosecute the petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH