- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17335 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: RAJ KUMARESAN L., S/O. LATE LAKSHMIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O NO-59/B, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, ANANDANAGAR, R.T. NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 032, ALSO R/O NO. 171, 14TH MAIN, IAS COLONY, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SARALA DEVI, D/O. LATE SUBRAMANI.S, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 46 YAERS, R/O.NO.59/8, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, ANANDANAGAR, R.T. NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 032. PRESENTLY R/O SMR CASTLE, NO-307, 2ND FLOOR, BANASAWADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 043. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA, ADVOCATE; RESPONDENT-SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN EX PET. NO 157/2024 DATED 24/2/2025, PRODUCED AS ANNEXEURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in Ex.P.No.157/2024 dated 24.02.2025 by the IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the delivery warrant is issued against the JDr./father to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of property referred in condition No.7 of mediation settlement agreement dated 19.02.2024, the JDr./father is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as father and mother for the sake of convenience. 3. The parties have entered into settlement before the Mediation Centre in M.C.No.1104/2021. As per the said settlement, the mother has agreed to bear entire educational, medical, upbringing and any other incidental expenses of the minor son and they have agreed that they have no claims of maintenance/permanent alimony against each other either past, present or in future, as both of them are gainfully employed. The mother had agreed to return back gold mangalya chain and one gold finger ring to the father on or before 14.03.2024. The father has agreed to vacate and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 handover the vacant premises bearing No.59/B, 1st Floor, 5th Cross, Anandanagar, R.T. Nagar, Bengaluru-560 032, to the mother on or before reporting settlement before the Family Court. In the light of the settlement, the mother had agreed to withdraw the cases filed by her i.e., Crl.Misc.No.64/2023, Crl.Misc.166/2022 and G&WC.No.429/2023 and basing on the same, the marriage between the parties was dissolved. The mother had filed the execution petition as clause No.7 with regard to handing over of the vacant premises was not complied by the father. 4. By the order impugned, the Family Court had issued the delivery warrant against the father. It is the contention of the JDr./father before the Family Court that the DHr./mother had not complied the other condition with regard to withdrawal of other cases pending between the parties. It is stated by the DHr./mother that the other cases were not withdrawn as JDr./father had not complied the condition of handing over the vacant possession. The Family Court had further observed that on the last hearing date when the child was kept present before the Court he declined to go with his mother and also stated that he want both his parents in the same house. It is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 submitted on behalf of JDr./father that the child stays in the same house and if delivery warrant is issued then the child has to be sent out of the house. As of now it is the father, who is residing in the house described in condition No.7 of the mediation settlement agreement and he had agreed to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the house. So if the child is not willing to go along with the DHr./mother and as he prefers to be with the father on vacating the premises it is for the JDr./mother to take the child along with him and it is not the child alone residing in the said house. The Family Court had further observed that the prayer of the DHr./mother in the petition is to direct the JDr./father to quit, vacate and handover the vacant possession of the premises and accordingly, order is passed by the Family Court by issuing delivery warrant against the JDr./father. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father has reiterated the contentions that are raised before the Family Court and submits that the mother has not complied with the conditions as stipulated in the joint agreement. It is submitted that he has to take of the child as he is not interested to stay with the mother. It is further submitted that while passing the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 order the paramount consideration of the Family Court should be the welfare of the child. It is submitted that the Executing Court has failed to take into consideration all these aspects. When the mother is not complying with the other condition, she cannot insist to comply with condition No.7 and basing on that, the Family Court cannot issue delivery warrant. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ mother submits that earlier W.P.No.10395/2025 is filed on behalf of the son represented by a caretaker and the relief that is sought in the said writ petition is to quash the execution proceedings pending on the file of IV Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. This Court had dismissed the said petition with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be payable to the Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is submitted that as they were not successful on the said writ petition, they have come with the present writ petition. It is submitted that the husband has contracted the second marriage. In the second marriage he is blessed with two children. It is submitted that when he has filed the Execution petition seeking delivery of the property, the Family Court had rightly considered all that and rightly passed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 the order and there are no grounds to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The admitted facts in this case are there was a joint agreement between the parties and basing on that divorce was granted. There are certain obligations as per the said agreement to be complied with by the mother and there are certain clauses to be complied with by the father. According to the father, as per the order impugned the mother has not complied with the order where she has to withdraw the pending petitions filed by her. For either of the parties, if there is any violation of a compromise decree, it is an executable decree and the parties have to file an appropriate application. In this case, the mother has already filed her execution petition. If the father has any other claims from the mother, he has to file his execution petition as the compromise decree is binding on both the parties. The mother who is present before this Court submits that she has withdrawn all the cases as per the settlement. If the father has any other claims that she has not complied with the order, he is at liberty to file an execution petition. Then, coming to the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38929 WP No. 17335 of 2025 order impugned, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Family Court had passed a reasoned order as per the compromise entered between the parties. The mother has to take care of the expenses of the child as per the joint agreement, if she is not it is for the father to file an appropriate application for the enforcement of the same. Hence, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4