Karnataka Gulbarga Court January 2011 Judgments

Sunanda and Another Vs. Bharat Naik

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

Arali Nagaraj, J The petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.47/2005 on the file of the Learned District Judge, Family Court, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as ‘Family Court’ for short) have sought for enhancement in the maintenance awarded in their favour by the order dated 27.9.2006 passed in the said case. The Family Court has awarded sum of Rs.700/- p.m. in favour of petitioner No.1 and Rs.800/- p.m. in favour of petitioner No.2 respectively being the wife and minor daughter of the respondent. 2. Heard the arguments of Sri Veeresh B. Patil Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri R.V. Nadagouda, Learned Counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners strongly contends that despite the Family Court observing in its impugned Judgment that the respondent has been a graduate in Engineering, has taken his income at Rs.5000/- p.m. instead of taking at Rs.10,000/- p.m and therefore the amounts awarded as monthly maintenance infavour of the petitio...

Basawanappa Vs. the Karnataka State Information Commission Rep. by Its ...

Court: Karnataka Gulbarga

Reported in: 2011ILR(Kar)1976; 2011(4)KCCR2834(DB); 2012(2)KantLJ237; 2012AIR(NOC)302

DR. BHAKTHAVATSALA, J 1. In the Appeal, the appellant has questioned the correctness of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed in W.P.No.80834/2010 by Learned Single Judge of this Court, rejecting the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant is entitled to file an Appeal under the Right to Information Act (in short, ‘the RTI Act’) to the Appellate Authority viz., the State Chief Information Commissioner. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in the RTI Act, for filing an Appeal against the order made by the State Information Commission (in short, ‘SIC’), but Learned Single Judge erred in rejecting the Writ Petition and holding that under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, Appeal lies to State Chief Information Commissioner. 3. Sri M. Kumar, Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that as against the order passed by the Public Information Officer (in short, ‘SPIO’), there is no provis...