Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 69973 (KAR)

DR SYED ANWARUL HUDA v. SMT SAMIN TAJ T I

WP/33418/2024 · 2025-07-23

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28169 WP No. 33418 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 33418 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: DR. SYED ANWARUL HUDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SYED NOORUL HUDA RESIDING AT, 4-123, PENAMALURU, KRISHNA, ANDHRA PRADESH-521 139 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHUNANDAN V.S, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND: 1. SMT SAMIN TAJ T.I AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O SYED ANWARUL HUDA, RESIDING AT, NO.96, 3RD MAIN, B CROSS, BEHIND R.T NAGAR POLICE STATION, H.M.T LAYOUT, KAUSER NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032 2. SYEDA ASFAHA ABIR AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS D/O. SYED ANWARUL HUDA, RESIDING NO.96, 3RD MAIN, B CROSS, BEHIND R.T NAGAR POLICE STATION, H.M.T LAYOUT, KAUSER NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28169 WP No. 33418 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA RAYING TO SET ASIDE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON I.A.NO.1 IN CRL.MISC.NO.223/2020 DATED 28.10.2022 BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU. COPY OF ORDER ON I.A.1 IN CRL.MISC.NO.223/2020 DATED 28.10.2022 BY THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE AT BENGALURU HEREIN ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER This petition is filed on 21.11.2024. From that day to till now, petitioner has not complied with the office objections. 2. When the matter was listed on 22.07.2025, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, this Court had directed the matter to be listed for 'dismissal' on 23.07.2025. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28169 WP No. 33418 of 2024 3. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70