Smt Kavitha Bai Vs Sri Togyanaik

SMT KAVITHA BAI W/O TOGYANAIK, D/O BHOOPAL NAIK, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, B.M.T.C CONDUCTOR, TOKEN NO 10905, 16^TH DEPO, B.M.T.C, DEEPANJALI NAGAR, BANGALORE-566 002

¶10

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KUMARI. KHUSHI D/O TOGYANAIK, AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT KAVITHA BAI/APPELLANT NO.1

¶12

KUMAR DHIGANTH GANESH T S/O TOGYANAIK, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT KAVITHA BAI/APPELLANT NO.1

¶13

ALL ARE PRESENTLY R/O DOOR NO.6, 26^TH BLOCK, POLICE COLONY MAGADI ROAD TOLL GATE,

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21093-DB MFA No. 7738 of 2019

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, BANGALORE-566 002

¶17

…APPELLANTS

¶18

(BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

SRI TOGYANAIK S/O LATE BASAPPANAIK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, B.M.T.C DRIVER CUM CONDUCTOR, NO.31, POST OFFICE ROAD, MALAVAGOPPA, SHIMOGA, PIN CODE-577 201

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI. RAMAKANTH RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶23

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 47(a) OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21/08/2018, PASSED IN G. AND W.C. NO.20/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED U/SEC.7, 10 AND 25 OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT, 1890.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶26

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:21093-DB MFA No. 7738 of 2019

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶32

The appeal is filed by the mother of the wards seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018, whereby the petition filed by the respondent/husband/father under Sections 7, 10 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 came to be allowed ex - parte with the custody of the wards being given to the respondent till the attainment of age of majority of the wards.

¶33

It is stated by the learned counsel for the

¶34

appellant that an interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation of the judgment of the decree.

¶35

The contention on behalf of the appellants is that appellant No.1 as well as the respondent are working as conductors in BMTC. It is stated that the respondent in the appeal had deliberately given the official address of appellant No.1 in the G and WC case. It is stated that given the nature of the job, she was not available to

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21093-DB MFA No. 7738 of 2019

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

accept any notice as she was hardly ever present at the depot mentioned in the address in the G and WC case. Accordingly, the matter proceeded ex - parte and the petition was decreed.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶40

respondent/husband is present in Court and states that he has no objection to the appeal being allowed.

¶41

We have perused the records and we find that

¶42

the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is correct. The appeal is accordingly allowed . The judgment and decree dated 21.08.2018 are set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Competent Court for adjudication afresh after permitting the appellant to file her response and to lead evidence.

¶43

Since the parties are represented, they shall appear before the Trial Court on 24.04.2026 . If, on that day, the Competent Court is not available for any reason, the parties shall appear on the next working day.

¶44