Allowed

Mr. Vikram B Mittadhar v. Karnataka State Commission for Women

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2021WP/8242/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On 04 June 2021, the High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The Court quashed the notice and proceedings initiated against the petitioners based on a complaint, upholding a compromise agreement recorded earlier between the petitioners and the marriage respondents to settle the family dispute.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed, the notice issued by Respondent No.1 is quashed, and the hearing notice is set aside in light of the compromise.

Mr. Vikram B Mittadhar Vs Karnataka State… — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8242 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR. VIKRAM B MITTADHAR, S/O. M.S. BALASUBRAMANYA,

¶7

HINDU,

¶8

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28, "KAMALALAYA", 18TH CROSS, POORNAPRAGNA NAGARA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 061.

¶9

MR. M. S. BALASUBRAMANYA, S/O. LATE M. SHIVASWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.28, "KAMALALAYA", 18TH CROSS, POORNAPRAGNA NAGARA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 061. (BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶10

MRS. KAMALAMMA, W/O.2. MR. M.S. BALASUBRAMANYA, HINDU,

¶11

AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

¶12

¶13

RESIDING AT NO.28, "KAMALALAYA", 18TH CROSS, POORNAPRAGNA NAGARA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,

¶14

BENGALURU-560 061. ...PETITIONERS (BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)

¶15

(BY SRI VIKRAM G, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR WOMEN, NO.107, CAUVERY BHAVANA, I FLOOR, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

¶18

MRS. ANANTHALAKSHMI, W/O. MR. VIKRAM B MITTADHAR, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2015, 7TH MAIN, II STAGE, "D" BLOCK, AMBHABAVANI TEMPLE STREET, RAJAJINAGAR,

¶19

BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.SUMITRA ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI VISHWANATH SETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-1 DTD. 09.02.2017. VIDE ANNEX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS AT ANNEX-A PENDING BEFORE THE R-1 AND FOR SUCH OTHER ORDER,

¶23

¶24

DIRECTION AND DECLARATION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶28

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners and second respondent have entered into a compromise and the matter came to be settled in MFA No.7118/2017 which came to be recorded and disposed of on 17.12.2019. That under the terms of compromise recorded the parties have mutually agreed to withdraw all the allegations and in that view of the matter it is submitted that the instant writ petition requires to be allowed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the parties concur with the same and affirm the recording of the compromise.

¶30

¶31

In the light of the compromise having been entered into and accepted by the parties the instant petition wherein notice was issued pursuant to a complaint lodged by the second respondent also requires to be considered in the light of the compromise entered into and in order to give an opportunity to the parties and to give a quietus to the discord and disharmony and enable them to lead their separate lives in peace. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The hearing notice is set aside.

¶32

In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties and in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2, writ petition stands allowed.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

ykl

Mr. Vikram B Mittadhar v. Karnataka State Commission for Women

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Vikram B Mittadhar v. Karnataka State Commission for Women

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

Sri. Mahanthesh J Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivas M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Anusha K Ghatke Vs Sri Vinayaka Pawar S

Sri. Sumanth Kumar G Vs Smt. Pavithra

M/S Sree Rajeshwari & Company Vs the Mysore Paper Mills Ltd.

Sinni Joshi Vs T.B.Joshi