Karnataka High Court · 2012
below consideritig the unchallenged testimony oI the’ rtpc dcl ic ii’- it eTr,nier r mne cpLfrMr ctoseto’il jt “s.oa cda pac udrnntor I :3.0.3.900% :1 la.’ our eel iii: appeilant .tgauist the ‘pnndei !1 41 nt1 12 er e (wOiCf 11% ‘h rig IA r x iarna.., “ Ph ‘1’ t it .1t h (fl’) 1 O’i’( ‘4 tiLe r’—pnrd’—rit •‘tci ‘itt ‘a I’ -ire ?•‘ ,iflw t•p1 t’i( np •!_‘ •1 ‘n • -‘._. t. ..c’._ - r ••‘f.! i v . i I c e I itI:t’ . I 1 • “,r r. ‘ •‘ t. .. I’- —t j •i- e (‘i . ‘.)..,) 1,_i •— ‘tn —. •‘ ‘P :r. ‘ . , ‘ ,,. I 1’ & S I t ‘ a In . lsn 111e4 ip .ip’ h’,iip unde Scw’jI n 3 C t t1i Lirnln.tlor_ Ac t %;L’Ine thaI l’’ nen r ieftntd thi’ r,qg r c ltr . i—u iIng 1iid uv IlL r h Li%band flittlIaSl hit r ant’ N— ‘id tic ki iwl. dec at ant I he e’x,kwtt uc1gr.ieni I1a%ets ag tii h c’ -d Ic I i Ii ‘ô e o c a cu U d iudwm iii nnh nn 01 .07 2009. when ‘the WJ% ..ir\ .nupanied it huh c d heparni üf tic 11)1 ILtI. ) re ueol. tren to illw ha to sn i U lw o I r lwsbai’tI. At hat tune the parents of the appellunt thtormeil i i t 1 11 tan a c — d) 11 he’ Ther’-dwr ‘ml ediaTnlv ‘ie r’adt. all clint., to criv .‘xprie dt’t’t rn nL,ta.(.I .1 i”jn si .h’ P’1lr ILer. itt1. 1 (1 ‘ I u.r ‘i!1n ;.rici a. ie%tI)lt’ i. irgrer :‘ •)n:g 1’( 1— jr:€—r 1% • $ J( o -‘ i I r Ii . ‘ .rnt I 4 i_i 1 I. • s’je.i’r’ 1rr lit’, F—) 1:1.—c ,i.u1 . 0 I ... 11 ia a a • p ‘ I • ‘ t ‘ I • nilnnr iianclrei —md rr%Inrine •jt1 T)j lilt’) is T 4 due n P.L%UtZt’ ni time and t1it e113,hi4.’E.I iuleil hi i d ‘1 I d in lii’ a 1 tti4 _cpIanrd %iij%1(j ink. I3eIii aLEft: Wi ‘ ‘3’ tl1 ‘aid c 1dtr qf the Far..ih C C’.i .fl% jut 1p,Ail h;n be. ii a. We h.we heard the learned counsel ajpe’ iwa tor ii apean ardyn hd hcoiu mpug clandafr c.. elV p usal I the udg’uer a”d icc °c ‘I tic Co i below wr do not fini ‘ni nror a ‘,tith rfl)LfljTga(j a i c p’ ) 1 1 - 4rt1u1u a-clr ‘tie nprte siL’:’rct .il divorix asse I a un,t 11 ‘r •‘ a’ ff •o 2.’! .‘ 2ft’G njl 3 (p.) 30( j gj ‘,iiIec.I T, r 1 II i — F tt’%’v.L1d”r /“i’fe (‘it) r..it— 11n •—!1ic a’ I 1t n eji’-1 Ci’—; 1% i U, 11 •ti T11 .i I ‘ (jr 1” .11 17 ‘,l I •‘ i i • I’ g j 4K’ ji r’ Lii ‘q II ‘,t I j iffi, . — :i ; !r • I tip % .1 1’ t. t C, ‘1’ ‘ i. I’ ‘I I S ‘ •(l —: r no tee the—i’ tbt tutu C Airt OU!,hl ‘a in’ t ic.sLicd the C ourt C r 1 t r r Ii ‘ippra tanut :4 he’v inc 1,) h’ r 1k- .l ‘1w fli’1r’ 4fV cli pos 1 c :1w sa tw n r er. . of ihc Ca ‘. The reaoriS asMs.zn d ‘ ‘14 hx at ccl nc itt chi fl re lii) nora aru do. ufl’t in an ci idenc e on n.e. ‘htereinre we hud It 1’ nat a ‘ r i d xi s 1’ 1 Court bdni nor ‘cic find any good grniii d to Interfere in iflia a
1. F o rj ‘ci etotng reasor% • ‘It appt lilt d bt thy’ ip dl. ii i dismjsd a ix rng deniJ 0 mc Tii% V LV if fffl at or it L %çj Tt,.)(.’ tile n lr ci ‘ ‘t s afli’ c. lo*’ .. ii’%ilti .i°idl’ . 1’ \ i.ij 2012 . 1ht! •% (