Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 81150 (KAR)

SRI D CHANDRASHEKAR v. SMT ROOPA DEVI

RPFC/84/2020 · 2025-07-21

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27857 RPFC No. 84 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 84 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. D. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE DODDAMARANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.306/3, BAGALAGUNTE, BEHIND MARAMMA TEMPLE, DODDAMARANNA LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. DAYALU, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: SMT. ROOPA DEVI D/O JAYAMMA, W/O SRI. D. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR OLD PHOENIX SCHOOL, BEHIND VENUGOPALA SWAMY TEMPLE, VIJAYALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BAGALAGUNTE POST, BANGALORE-560 073. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.MISC.NO.64/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE; (II) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2020 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.64/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE AND THE SAID PETITION MAY BE DISMISSED. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27857 RPFC No. 84 of 2020 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER On 9.4.2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted stay. 2. Initially, process is paid and notice to respondent is served but returned as 'insufficient address'. For issuance of notice for the second time, process is not paid and the matter was listed under the caption for 'orders' on 18.7.2025. As there was no representation and no notice was served on the respondent, this Court directed the matter to be listed today. 3. Today also, there is no representation. It appears that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the matter. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TL/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14