- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33411 WP No. 24975 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24975 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SRI. VENKATESH, S/O MADALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BASAVA LAYOUT, HOLALKERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HARSHA KUMAR GOWDA H.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. DARSHAN BALU B P S/O PRKASH B H AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 2. SMT. CHANDRAKALA W/O PRAKASH.B.H., AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 3. SMT. PRAKASH. B.H., S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 4. PARTHA ADAMYA, S/O DARSHAN BALU, AGED ABOUT 4½ YEARS, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33411 WP No. 24975 of 2025 ALL ARE RESIDING AT KODIBASAVANA BEEDI, HOLALKERE TOWN, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577526. …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2025 PASSED IN G AND WC. NO. 35/2024 BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HOLALKERE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The parties have entered into compromise before Lok Adalath on 08.03.2025. That order is questioned before this Court by way of present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a cryptic compromise and the default clause is not included. In view of the same, the petitioner is not able to see the child and the order of the compromise decree is not implemented. Hence, the writ petition that is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33411 WP No. 24975 of 2025 3. The petitioner is a party to this compromise decree and it is not even his case that he has signed the same on coercion or any fraud is played against him. Just because there is no default clause and the petitioner is not permitted to exercise the visitation rights, that cannot be a ground to interfere with the compromise decree. If any of the terms of the compromise decree are not implemented and the decree of compromise needs to be set aside. The remedy available to the parties to go before the Executing Court or before the very same Court, but not before this Court. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy. ii. All IA.s' in this petition stands closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SSD/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15