The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging an order from a family court in Gadag. The court held the petition infructuous because the underlying criminal matter had already been disposed of.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10985 WP No. 102343 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH WRIT PETITION NO. 102343 OF 2016 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
RAJSHEKHAR S/O. BASAVRAJAPPA WARAD, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER, R/O: H.NO.87, 5TH MAIN, R.P.C LAYOUT, VIJAY NAGAR, BENGALURU.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGE: 4 YEARS,
SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA DHARWAD BENCH
SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E RESPONDENT NO.1.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED:19.01.2016, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, GADAG ON I.A.NO.II IN CRL. MISC.NO.66/2015, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:10985 WP No. 102343 of 2016
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)
The learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo along with affidavit that the respondent No.1 as refused received the Hand-summons. In view of filing of the affidavit, the notice to respondent No.1 is held sufficient.
dismissed as having become infructuous
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
PMP/CT-MCK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition has become infructuous as the impugned order in the underlying criminal miscellaneous proceeding has already been disposed of.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJSHEKHAR S/O. BASAVRAJAPPA WARAD
GEETA W/O. RAJSHEKHAR WARAD
KUMARI BHANDHAVI D/O. RAJSHEKHAR WARAD
KUMAR PRATHAM D/O. RAJSHEKHAR WARAD
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
