Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 76012 (KAR)

SRI C P BHAVYA v. C. HARSHAVARDHANA

MFA/8923/2018 · 2025-10-16

Jayant Banerji, K V Aravind

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41113-DB MFA No. 8923 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8923 OF 2018 (GW) BETWEEN: SRI. C P BHAVYA D/O C N PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT: CHOUDANAHALLI, THAGARE POST, BIKKODU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK NOW RESIDING AT: BASAVANAHALLI, NARSINGA RAO ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SUNDARESH H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: C. HARSHAVARDHANA S/O A N CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT ANOOR VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALURU …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41113-DB MFA No. 8923 of 2018 THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(a) OF GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT 1890 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2018 PASSED IN G & WC NO.10/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the present appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court at Chikkamagaluru dated 27.04.2018 in G and W.C. No.10/2015, whereby the application moved by the respondent under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, was allowed. It is stated that, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41113-DB MFA No. 8923 of 2018 as evident from paragraph No.11 of the impugned order, the age of the child was 14 years then. The child has attained majority. 3. In view of the statement made and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the appeal has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8