LAWS(KAR)-2010-5-67

H.M. KUMAR S/O. MARIGOWDA, MARIGOWDA S/O. KEMPEGOWDA AND DUNDAMMA W/O. MARIGOWDA Vs. SMT. KEMPAJAMMA W/O. H.M. KUMAR D/O. SUBEGOWDA AND KUM. NEHA D/O. H.M. KUMAR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL MOTHER KEMPAJAMMA

Decided On May 28, 2010
H.M. Kumar S/O. Marigowda, Marigowda S/O. Kempegowda And Dundamma W/O. Marigowda Appellant
V/S
Smt. Kempajamma W/O. H.M. Kumar D/O. Subegowda And Kum. Neha D/O. H.M. Kumar Represented By Her Natural Mother Kempajamma Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the concurrent judgments and decree dated 29.9.2007 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Malavalli in O.S. No. 72/2003 and dated 5.9.2009 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Malavalli in RA. No. 12/2007.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the marriage between the first appellant and the first respondent was solemnized on 29.5.1997. The second respondent is born in their wedlock on 12.2.1999. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are the father and mother of the first appellant respectively. After heaping the physical and mental torture on the first respondent demanding payment of additional dowry, the appellants drew her out of the matrimonial home. She filed the suit for maintenance. The Trial Court awarded the monthly maintenance of Rs. 1,000/ - to each of the respondents. It also awarded Rs. 5,000/ - towards the litigation expenses. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants filed R -A. No. 12/2007, which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court ay its judgment dated 5.9.2009. On suffering, the concurrent judgments and decrees, this appeal is instituted.

(3.) MY reading of the impugned judgments reveal that the averments of the respondents that the appellants are growing mulberry, paddy said banana, etc. is not demolished/at all. The Trial Court has disbelieved the ostensible offer made by the appellants to take back the respondents, because the appellants have not participated in the conciliation proceedings and as they have not paid a pie towards the maintenance during the pendency of the suit proceedings. The Trial Court has given weightage to vital aspect of the matter that the second respondent -plaintiff is studying in the school and the appellants have not been paying anything towards her educational fee, food, etc.