Karnataka Court June 1999 Judgments

H. Devaraju Vs. H.R. Halappa

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(5)KarLJ124

ORDER1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 30th May, 1996, whereby the Court below has rejected the petitioner's application I.A. III made in Original Suit No. 519 of 1992. By I.A. III the revision petitioner has prayed for appointment of handwriting expert to compare the disputed signatures with the admitted signatures, of the defendant and to give his opinion with reference to Exs. P. 1 and P. 2 as according to him it was necessary to do so. The Court below rejected that application taking a view that the Court itself is competent to compare the signatures and there is no need to appoint a handwriting expert. It further observed that the defendant has not denied his signature on the pro note and receipt and there is no question of the same being sent to the handwriting expert. Therefore the Court below rejected that application. Feeling aggrieved by that order the petitioner has come up in this revision.2. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner contended th...

Balasaheb Vs. Smt. Mangal

Court: Karnataka

ORDER1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure arises from the order dated 28-8-1996 passed by Sri S.B. Deshpande, Civil Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Athani, on I.A. I application for amendment of the pleadings in petition for divorce, viz., Matrimonial Case No. 16 of 1995. The Trial Court rejected the amendment application taking a view that it was belated and afterthought and that the amendment if allowed would introduce a new case or new cause of action. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court below has erroneously taken a view that the amendment will amount to introducing a new cause of action or case. The learned Counsel contended that the amendments are to be allowed which are necessary for determination of the dispute between the parties, and the amendment in question was necessary to amplify the pleadings and even if it is belated it has got to be allowed, because it is not going to cause any injustice. This conten...

Mahaboob Ali Alias Khalid Vs. Abdul Rasheed Alias Zeehan

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1999(2)ALT(Cri)358; 1999CriLJ3822; II(2000)DMC624; ILR1999KAR2784; 1999(4)KarLJ553

ORDERG.C. Bharuka, J. 1. The present civil revision petition is filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the order dated 27-2-1999 passed by the Family Court at Raichur, in Cr. Misc. No. 28 of 1998 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs. 500/- per month as maintenance to his minor child born out of his wife who is subsequently divorced.2. This case has been referred to Division Bench on a reference made by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 11-1-1999 for considering the following questions of law:'The first question is: Whether in view of Section 3(1)(b) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, the child is not entitled to claim any maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code from his father, who has divorced the child's mother, irrespective of whether child was born before or after the divorce? The second question is: If the answer to Question No. 1 is in the affirmative i.e., if child'...