Allowed

Mrs. Vanathy Rajkumar v. Sri. K. Harish Kumar

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2021WP/5164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the mother of a minor child to quash an order passed by the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights. The Court held that the Commission lacked jurisdiction as the parent had already filed a pending petition regarding the same matter before the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; the impugned order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights was set-aside.

Mrs. Vanathy Rajkumar Vs Sri. K. Harish Kumar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.5164 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

MRS. VANATHY RAJKUMAR W/O HARISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.40, GONIKAPPA ROAD PANJERPET, VIRAJPET COORG-571 218 …PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. U. BINDU, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND :

¶10

SRI. K. HARISH KUMAR MAJOR NO.152/2-2, WHEELER ROAD FRAZER TOWN BANGALORE-05 ...RESPONDENT (BY SHRI. S. BHARATH FOR SHRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATES)

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.08.2018 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR CHILD RIGHTS VIDE ANENXURE-A.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Petitioner and respondent are parents of a child by name Tanvee Harish.

¶16

Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Advocate for petitioner submitted that presently, child is with petitioner. Respondent has approached the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights ('Commission' for short) and the said authority has passed the impugned order dated 08.08.2018 permitting the respondent to meet the child on every Saturdays and Sundays between 10.30 a.m. and 5.00 p.m. and issued certain other directions.

¶17

Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that the Commission has no authority in law to pass the impugned order. Husband has filed M.C. No.1780/2017 and the same is pending adjudication in the Court of V Additional Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. According to her, no application is filed seeking visitation rights before the Family Court.

¶18

¶19

Learned Advocate for petitioner submitted that an application has been filed before the Family Court seeking visitation rights.

¶20

Be that as it may, the impugned order passed by the Commission is clearly without jurisdiction. Hence, the following:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(a) Petition is allowed .

¶23

(b) Order dated 08.08.2018 as per Annexure-A

¶24

passed by the Commission, is set-aside.

¶25

In view of disposal of this petition, I.A.

¶26

No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

SPS

Mrs. Vanathy Rajkumar v. Sri. K. Harish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Vanathy Rajkumar v. Sri. K. Harish Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Viswapriya (India) Ltd. Vs the Director General of Police

Rajesh Vs the State of Karnataka

K Subaschandra Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Vs Karnataka Petroleum & Gas Workers Union

Praveena Vs the State of Karnataka

Swajesh Jain Vs the State of Karnataka