Disposed

Smt Nagamani @ Mamatha v. Sri Shivaprakash

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2024RPFC/194/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two cross-filed revision petitions concerning a Family Court maintenance award were settled: one dismissed as infructuous after amicable settlement reported in MFA 426/2019, the other disposed per joint memo; deposited interim amount ordered released to petitioner.

What did the court decide?

RPFC 194/2021 dismissed as infructuous; RPFC 42/2020 disposed per joint memo; deposited amount directed to be released to petitioner.

Smt Nagamani @ Mamatha Vs Sri Shivaprakash — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:43165 RPFC No. 194 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 42 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶6

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 194 OF 2021

¶7

C/W

¶8

REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 42 OF 2020

¶9

IN RPFC No. 194/2021

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT NAGAMANI @ MAMATHA W/O SHIVAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶12

KUM NEHA

¶13

D/O SHIAPRAKASH AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, MINOR-REPRESENTED BY THE 1^ST PETITIONER MOTHER AS NEXT FRIEND -NATURAL GUARDIAN

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

BOTH ARE R/AT KUNDUR DEVARAYAPATTANA POST KASABA HOBLI -572 103 TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

SRI SHIVAPRAKASH S/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O VASAVI NAGARA SIRA GATE TUMAKUR CITY -572 106.

¶20

…RESPONDENT

¶21

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:43165 RPFC No. 194 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 42 of 2020

¶22

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R & K.N., SUNIL, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19(4) OF FAMILY COURT ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO.37/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 125 OF Cr.P.C FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶24

IN RPFC NO. 42/2020 BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI. SHIVAPRAKASH S/O. LATE. YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. VASAVI NAGARA, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU CITY, TUMAKURU - 572 106.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. RAMESH K R.,ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

SMT. NAGAMANI @ MAMATHA W/O. SHIVAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶30

KUM. NEHA D/O. SHIVAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, (SINCE MINOR REP BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN 1ST RESPONDENT,),

¶31

BOTH ARE R/O. KUNDUR, DEVARAYAPATTANA POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST- 572 106.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE; R2 IS MINOR REP BY R1)

¶34

THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO. 37/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC. 125 OF CR.P.C., FOR MAINTENANCE.

¶35

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:43165 RPFC No. 194 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 42 of 2020

¶36

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

R.P.F.C.No.194/2021

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner files a memo

¶41

stating that the parties have amicably settled the subject matter and reported the same in M.F.A.No.426/2019. In view of the same, the petition does not survive for consideration and prayed to dismiss the petition as having become infructuous.

¶42

Memo is placed on record.

¶43

Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶44

R.P.F.C. No.42/2020

¶45

Learned counsel for the parties filed a joint memo stating that the subject matter of the petition and all other disputes between the parties have been settled out of the

¶46

Court. Accordingly, the compromise petition was filed in M.F.A.No.426/2019 and the said M.F.A.No.426/2019 was

¶47

disposed of on 30.09.2024, in terms of the compromise petition. The copy of the compromise petition and order

¶48

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:43165 RPFC No. 194 of 2021 C/W RPFC No. 42 of 2020

¶49

passed in M.F.A.No.426/2019 are enclosed along with a joint memo.

¶50

Memo is placed on record.

¶51

The petition is disposed of in terms of joint memo.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶53

pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner has deposited the amount and prays to release the amount in favour of the petitioner.

¶54

Learned counsel for the respondents submits no objection to release the said amount in favour of the petitioner.

¶55

Submission is taken on record.

¶56

Office is directed to release the amount deposited by

¶57

the petitioner in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶58

SD/(ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

¶59

RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Smt Nagamani @ Mamatha v. Sri Shivaprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Nagamani @ Mamatha v. Sri Shivaprakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Saurbah Saksena Vs Mrs. Prabhjeet Kaur

Smt Sakamma Since Dead by Her Lrs Vs Dr Sowmya

Official Liquidator of Vs M/S Prem Shoes Pvt. Ltd.

B G Mahesh Vs Smt Anitha

Smt Nirmala Bai Vs Shri Chandu Rao

Pranab Kumar Dutta Vs Jaba Roy