Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30197 (KAR)

H V KAVITHA v. E KAKAIVANI

WP/41768/2017 · 2025-01-20

Jyoti Mulimani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2218 WP No. 41768 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 41768 OF 2017 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: 1. H.V.KAVITHA W/O LATE M.GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 2. CHANDAN.G S/O LATE M GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 5.5 YEARS, 3. MUTHURAU @ MUTHAIAH S/O LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 4. SMT MUNIYAMMA W/O MUTHURAJ @ MUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 5. M.PINKA @ LAKSHMI D/O MUTHURAJ @ MUTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER PETITIONER-1, SMT. KAVITHA. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF 2ND CROSS, LEELAVATHI EXTENTION, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 403. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.M.SANATHKUMARA., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2218 WP No. 41768 of 2017 AND: 1. E.KAKAIVANI W/O ELAMPORNAM, MAJOR, NO.8/321, CHINNAVEPPANATHAM, VASANTHAPURAM POST, NAMKKAL TALUK AND DISTRICT. TAMIL NADU. PIN:680 713. 2. THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NEW MUSLIM HOSTEL COMPLEX, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE, PIN-570 013. …RESPONDENTS (R1-DISMISSED AGAINST V/O DATED:01.02.2019; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Sanath Kumara.K.M., counsel for the petitioners has appeared in person. Counsel submits that a memo has been filed stating that the Writ Petition may be dismissed as having become infructuous. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2218 WP No. 41768 of 2017 placed on record and the Writ Petition may be dismissed as having become infructuous. When queried, counsel for the petitioners submits that a conscious decision is taken by him and the petitioners about infructuous of the Writ Petition and if an order is passed, they shall not seek for recalling the same or file a review petition. The oral submission made by counsel for the petitioners and the memo is placed on record. The Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13