Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37759 (KAR)

SHIVAKUMAR L NILGUND, v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,

WP/109938/2016 · 2025-08-23

S Sunil Dutt Yadav

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10774 WP No. 109938 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 109938 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHIVAKUMAR L. NILGUND, S/O LINGABASAPPA R. NILGUND, AGE. 40 YEARS, R/O MENASAGI, RON TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. - PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN TARIKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT AND PRESIDING OFFICER, MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. 2. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. 3. LINGABASAPPA R. NILGUND, S/O RUDRAPPA NILGUND, AGE. 75 YEARS, R/O H.NO.38, SECTOR 42, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT DISTRICT. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3) 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, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2016 BEARING NO.Hiriya/Nagarika/CR/4/2016-17 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10774 WP No. 109938 of 2016 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo and submits that order of the Assistant Commissioner has been challenged whereby the petitioner was directed to pay maintenance to his father, respondent No.3. It is submitted that respondent No.3 has passed away. In the light of the memo and submission made, taking note of the subsequent event in the form of death of respondent No.3, the order called in question cannot any longer be enforced. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of observing that the order of Assistant Commissioner can no longer operate subsequent to the death of respondent No.3. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE BVV, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11