Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3730 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2767
RPFC No. 100150 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100150 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.GOPALA CHOUDRY @ B. RAJAGOPAL
S/O. BODAPATI JANGAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC:AGRICUALTURE,
AND WORKING IN DEVI FILM DISTRIBUTOR,
NOW RESIDING AT NEAR ANJINEYA SWAMY TEMPLE,
LATHVARAM, URAVAKONDA TALUK 515812,
URAVAKONDA MANDALAM,
ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.N. BANAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
SAROJA 1. SMT. B. GEETHA
SAROJA HANGARAKI
HANGARAKI Date: W/O. B. GOPALA CHOUDRY @
2024.02.13 @ B RAJAGOPAL,
17:01:34
+0530 AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC:SINECURE,
NOW RESIDING AT SHANKAR SINGH CAMP,
BALLARI, TALUK AND DISTRICT 583113,
KARNATAKA STATE.
2. KUMARI B. KAVYA
D/O. B. GOPALA CHOUDRY
@ B RAJAGOPAL AND
SMT B GEETHA,
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS,
OCC:STUDENT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2767
RPFC No. 100150 of 2017
MINOR, REPRESENTED
BY HER NATURAL
MOTHER AND GUARDIAN.
SMT B. GEETHA
W/O. B. GOPALA CHOUDRY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC: SINCECURE,
NOW RESIDING AT S
'HANKAR SINGH CAMP,
BALLARI TALUK AND
DISTRICT 583113, KARNATAKA STATE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
DATED:06.10.2017, IN CRL.MISC. NO.162/2016, ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BALLARI, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER
HUSBAND TO PAY MAINTENANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,000/- +
RS.4,000/- PER MONTH (TOTALLY RS.7,000/- PER MONTH)
FROM THE DATE OF PETITION MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE AND
CRL.MISC.NO.162/2016 MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED BY
ALLOWING THIS REVISION PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQYITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:2767
RPFC No. 100150 of 2017
ORDER
Sri.S.N.Banakar, learned counsel for the revision
petitioner submits that despite specific instructions, the
revision petitioner has not taken any interest in instructing
him to proceed with the case further.
Left with no alternative, placing the submission of
Sri.S.N.Banakar on record, the revision petition stands
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SH
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!