- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25551 RSA No. 1153 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1153 OF 2012 (RES) BETWEEN: SRI NAGARAJU S/O LATE CHINNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O KAGGERE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TQ., TUMKUR DIST - 572 117. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT UMADEVI W/O NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/O P. GOLLAHALLI, BELLAVI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 103. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.S. DEVARAJU.,ADVOCATE) THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.02.2012 PASSED IN R.A.NO.264/2009 (OLD NO.66/2007) ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-I, TUMKUR, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 20.3.2007 PASSED IN O.S.NO.1/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) TUMKUR AND ETC. Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25551 RSA No. 1153 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree in a suit for maintenance filed by the respondent/wife. The relationship is not in dispute. The Trial Court passed an order directing the appellant/husband to pay Rs.800/- p.m. as against the claim of Rs.1,000/- p.m. . 2. The appellant/husband had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal. Against the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/husband would submit that the respondent -wife has contracted the second marriage, as such she is not entitled for maintenance as sought for. 4. It is stated that respondent/wife was married on 10.06.2012. It is a day before the present appeal is filed. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25551 RSA No. 1153 of 2012 5. After considering the material on record, this Court is of the view that the relationship between the parties was not in dispute. The decree for Rs.800/- as against the claim of Rs.1,000/- is not unreasonable. On the other hand, it is on meager side and there is nothing on record to show that the appellant/husband has complied the said order. Nothing on record to hold that respondent contracted second marriage. 6. Under these circumstances, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration and accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66