- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29090 RSA No. 26 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 26 OF 2014 (RES) BETWEEN: MRS REKHA, D/O KENCHANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT SAI VARDHANA, II FLOOR, FIRST CROSS, RAJENDRANAGAR, SHIMOGA - 577201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI N R NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: MR RAMAKRISHNA S/O K.V. AMBANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, DODDIAHA BUILDING, 1ST MAIN, II CROSS, B.K.NAGAR, YASHWANTHAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560022. …RESPONDENT THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 31.03.2013 PASSED IN R.A NO.186/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE, I FAST TRACK COURT, SHIMOGA, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.02.2010 PASSED IN O.S NO.99/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DN) AND C.J.M, SHIMOGA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29090 RSA No. 26 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law: "Whether the Trial Court is justified in granting maintenance of Rs.2,000/- as against the claim of Rs.5,000/-?" 2. The suit is filed claiming Rs.75,000/- from the defendant - husband. The break-up of Rs.75,000/- claimed by the plaintiff is as under: (a) Maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from 31.05.1998 to 31.08.1998. (b) Maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month from 01.09.1998 to 31.08.1999. 3. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part and held that the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance of Rs.2,000/- per month from 31.05.1998 to 31.08.1998. 4. The status of the plaintiff and the defendant as wife and the husband is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29090 RSA No. 26 of 2014 the plaintiff and the defendant stayed together only for 5 days. The plaintiff and the defendant lived together from 31.05.1998 to 31.08.1998 and thereafter they started to live separately. 5. It is submitted that now the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband have contracted second marriage afte divorce. It is also forthcoming from records that the plaintiff is an Engineer. 6. This being the position, this Court does not find any reason to entertain second appeal. Substantial question of law does not arise for consideration. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed . Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26