Allowed

Kareem Shariff v. Office of the Sub Registrar and Marrige Registrar

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022WP/22264/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an endorsement dated 18.11.2021 issued by the Sub-Registrar, Hebbal. Upon settlement of the dispute between the husband and wife, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the endorsement, entitling the petitioners to consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed; the endorsement dated 18.11.2021 stands quashed; petitioners entitled to all consequential benefits.

Kareem Shariff Vs Office of the Sub Registrar and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 22264 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22264 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

KAREEM SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SON OF USMAN SHARIFF RESIDING A/T NO. 202 1^ST FLOOR, SAIT MANOR APARTMENT APPAJAPPA LAYOUT SHAMPURA KAVALBYRASANDRA, R.T. NAGAR POST BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶10

AISHA BANU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS D/O USMAN SHARIFF R/AT NO. 202, 1^ST FLOOR SAIT MANOR APARTMENT APPAJAPPA LAYOUT SHAMPURA, KAVALBYRASANDRA R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S.V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

WP No. 22264 of 2021

¶15

AND:

¶16

OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR AND MARRIAGE REGISTRAR R.T.NAGAR, HEBBAL BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶17

MAIMUNA KHATOON FARHANA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS W/O KAREEM SHARIFF, R/AT NO. 27, GROUND FLOOR 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SHAMPUR ROAD CROSS, AMBEDKAR LAYOUT KAVALBYRASANDRA R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶18

MADIHA FATHIMA AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS (MINOR) D/O KAREEM SHARIFF, R/AT NO. 27, GROUND FLOOR 2^ND MAIN ROAD,

¶19

SHAMPUR ROAD CROSS, AMBEDKAR LAYOUT KAVALBYRASANDRA R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032. RERPESENTED BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN MAIMUNA KHATOON.

¶20

MISBAH FATHIMA AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS (MINOR)

¶21

¶22

WP No. 22264 of 2021

¶23

D/O KAREEM SHARIFF R/AT NO. 27, GROUND FLOOR 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SHAMPUR ROAD CROSS, AMBEDKAR LAYOUT KAVALBYRASANDRA R.T.NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032 RERPESENTED BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN MAIMUNA KHATOON.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.N.KUMAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI CHETAN CHANDRASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE OFFICE OF THE SUBREGISTRAR, HEBBAL BANGALORE CULMINATING IN THE PASSING OF THE ORDER IMPUGNED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNX-J AND ETC.,

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question an endorsement dated 18.11.2021, issued by the Sub-Registrar, Hebbal, Bengaluru.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 22264 of 2021

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed a

¶33

memo reporting settlement of the issue between the parties.

¶34

3. The memo reads as follows:

¶35

“The Respondents No.2 to 4 submit that in view of the settlement sought to be entered into between the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondents No.2 to 4, they have No Objections to the present writ petition being allowed as prayed for and pray that the present memo to the said effect be taken on record, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶36

In terms of the memo, the parties to the lis i.e., the husband and the wife have settled the dispute amongst themselves and nothing further survives for consideration at the hands of this Court. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned endorsement.

¶37

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶40

(ii) The endorsement dated 18.11.2021, stands quashed.

¶41

¶42

WP No. 22264 of 2021

¶43

(iii) The petitioners are entitled to all the

¶44

consequential benefit that would flow from the quashing of the impugned endorsement.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70

Kareem Shariff v. Office of the Sub Registrar and Marrige Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kareem Shariff v. Office of the Sub Registrar and Marrige Registrar

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. v Ramanujam Vs the Authorised Officer

Krishi Infratech Vs Union of India

Smt R Aruna @ Aruna Y R Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sai Sudhir Infrastructures Ltd. Vs the Chief Engineer

Lily Realty Pvt. Ltd., Vs Yerasi Srilekha

Ayesha M E Vs Dr Imran Khan