(BY SRI S B HEBBALLI & SRI V MUNIRAJU, ADVS.) v. SRI MAHESH C, ADVS.)

(BY SRI S B HEBBALLI & SRI V MUNIRAJU, ADVS.) ... PETITIONERS AND: SHRI AKKALA VENKATESH @ A VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O A MUNISWAMY OCC: CONTRACTER, R/AT NO.102/2, 2ND MAIN LILJINAGAR, SHANKARAPPA LAYOUT LAKKASANDRA, BANGALORE 560 011 (BY SRI RAMESH CHANDRA SRI BASAVARAJU S.M & SRI MAHESH C, ADVS.) ... RESPONDENT RPFC FILED U/SEC.19(4), OF FAMILY COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 01.07.10 PASSED IN CRL.M.C.NO.552/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDL. - 2 - PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.125(3) OF CR.P.C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R The learned Counsel for respondent has filed objections.

#2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Counsel appearing respondent.

#3. There are serious disputes between petitioner (wife of respondent) and respondent. As a result, the welfare of second petitioner (minor boy) is in jeopardy. The learned trial Judge, while dismissing the petition has completely ignored the interest of minor petitioner.

#4. The fairly well settled that adjudication of matrimonial disputes between husband and wife, the welfare of their child is of paramount consideration. Therefore, the learned trial Judge should not have dismissed maintenance petition on the ground - 3 - that first petitioner has not complied the terms of memorandum of settlement entered into between first petitioner and respondent. Even if there were to be any violations on the part of first petitioner, such violations cannot be a ground to ignore the welfare of second petitioner (minor son). The learned trial Judge has completely ignored the interest and welfare of second petitioner.

#5. Therefore, the petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned trial Judge for re-consideration in accordance with law. nas. Sd/- JUDGE