On admission, the court dismissed the review petition as not pressed following a memo by the petitioner. The court declined to observe on the alleged settlement between parties. Pending interim applications ceased to survive.
The review petition (RPFC.No.84/2016) was dismissed as not pressed without comment on the alleged settlement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.P.F.C.No.84 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
Mohammed Sayeed, Age about 35 years, S/o Mohammed Babjan, Ac Mechanic, R/at No.6077, 2nd Cross, Subdriabad Mohalla, Gutal Road, Mandya. .. Petitioner
( By Sri Mohammed Tahir, Advocate )
AND:
Both are residing at No.1, Lazar Road, Opp. KEB Office, Frazer Town, Bangalore-560 005.
RPFC.No.84/2016 2
(Respondent No.2 is minor represented by her mother Smt.Nuzhath Sultana). .. Respondents
This R.P.F.C filed under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act, against the order dated 18.03.2016, passed in Crl.Misc.No.396/2013, on the file of the III Addl.Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, partly allowing the petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
This R.P.F.C coming on for Admission, through Physical Hearing/Video Conferencing Hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo seeking withdrawal of the petition as not pressed stating that the parties have amicably settled the matter by entering into a Memorandum of Understanding.
In view of the memo and supporting submission from both side, the Petition stands dismissed as not pressed, however, without making any observation with respect to the alleged Memorandum of Understanding.
RPFC.No.84/2016
3
In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending IAs. does
not survive for consideration.
Sd/JUDGE
bk/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the withdrawal of the review petition by the petitioner should be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mohammed Sayeed
Smt.Nuzhath Sultana
Master Mohammed Arhaan
H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
