Karnataka Court February 1968 Judgments
Boramma Vs. Dharmappa
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1968
Reported in: AIR1969Kant17; AIR1969Mys17; (1968)2MysLJ39
1. The suit out of which this second appeal arises commenced with an application for permission to sue in forma pauperis which was presented on July 14, 1958. The plaintiff was the wife who sought a decree for maintenance against her husband. There was an ex parte decree on April 8, 1959, and, in execution of that decree, the property of the husband was sold. It was at that stage that the husband made an application for getting the ex parte decree set aside, and it was set aside on payment of costs. The written statement was then produced on January 15, 1962 in which the husband contended that the wife had forfeited her right to maintenance by her unchastity.2. The allegation of unchastity was made on the foundation of the birth of a female child to the plaintiff on November 8, 1960 during the pendency of the suit. The husband denied that the child was born to him while the wife asserted that he was her parent.3. The Courts below pronounced against legitimacy and this was responsible f...
Tag this Judgment!Nanjayya Hegde Vs. Mahabala Shetty and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Feb-08-1968
Reported in: 1968CriLJ1518
ORDERAhmed Ali Khan, J.1. This Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Coondapur on 3rd July 1967 in M.C. 3 of 1966 on the file of his Court in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that proceeding a preliminary order against the Respondent was passed to remove the obstruction alleged to have been caused by him in a mamool pathway in Abbedi village. The petitioner had alleged that there existed a mamool pathway passing through Section Nos. 92, 245, 102/1 and 101 of Abbedi village and that the respondent was obstructing the use of the said pathway. It was further alleged by him that the pathway was a public pathway. But the respondent contended that the pathway was a private cart track and not a public path, way as alleged by the petitioner. The trying Magistrate was of the view that the pathway was not a public pathway as alleged by the petitioner and by the order in revision set aside the preliminary order...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›