In Family Court Appeal No. 774 of 2020, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution as the appellant failed to appear and deposit litigation expenses despite prior directions.
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-payment of litigation expenses and non-appearance.
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.
MFA No. 774 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
M.F.A.NO.774 OF 2020 (FC)
BETWEEN:
SRIDHARA S S/O SIDDAPPA S AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT #07, LIG KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, R.S.NAIDU NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 007.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE - ABSENT)
AND:
Digitally signed GEENTHANJALI H.V. by GAYATHRI N W/O SRIDHAR S Location: High Court of D/O H.M.VENKATESH, Karnataka AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY, MATHRUSRI NILAYA, BEHIND KSRTC DEPOT, HOLENARASIPURA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT.
AND ALSO AT 110 SOMALAMMA TEMPLE ROAD, BHYRAVESHWARA NAGARA, HEBBALU, MYSURU.
…RESPONDENT
MFA No. 774 of 2020
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(1) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.06.2019, PASSED IN M.C.NO.392/2018 BY THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE AT MYSURU AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE M.C.NO.392/2018 AND PASS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER ORDERS AS DEEMS FIT TO IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
A Bench of this Court by an order dated 10.02.2022 has directed the appellant to pay the litigation expenses. Thereafter on 08.02.2023, two weeks time was granted to the learned counsel for appellant to pay the litigation expenses and on failure to do so, it was directed that appropriate orders shall be passed.
Further when the matter is called even today in the second round, neither anyone has appeared on behalf of appellant nor the litigation expenses has been deposited.
MFA No. 774 of 2020
Therefore, appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
RR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
Sridhara S
Geenthanjali H.V.
Alok Aradhe
Vijaykumar A. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
