Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 82138 (KAR)

MR RAFEEQ AHMED ZAHEER v. MS SAFA MOHAMADI

RPFC/18/2021 · 2025-07-21

Lalitha Kanneganti

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28139 RPFC No. 18 of 2021 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. 18 OF 2021 BETWEEN: MR. RAFEEQ AHMED ZAHEER S/O MOHAMMED ZAHEERUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING OUT OF INDIA OFFICE AT OLD MANDLI, NEAR R.R. CONVENT, THIRTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 202. (NOW PETITIONER IS IN INDIA) RESIDING AT SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.D. KASHINATH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: MS. SAFA MOHAMADI D/O RAFEEQ AHMED ZAHEER, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, RESPONDENT IS BEING REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER SMT. ASMA BANU D/O LATE ABDUL SAMAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT 1ST MAIN, URGADUR, WADI-W-HUDA, BYPASS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 203. …RESPONDENT THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINS TO C.MISC.NO.19/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA; (II) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2020 PASSED IN C.MISC.NO.19/2019 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT SHIVAMOGGA. Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:28139 RPFC No. 18 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The RPFC is of the year 2022. Till now, no steps are taken for issuance of notice to the respondent despite sufficient opportunities were granted by this Court. 2. When the matter was listed on 18.7.2025, as there was no representation on behalf of both the parties and no notice is served on the respondent, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption for 'dismissal' today. 3. Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Hence, it appears that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the matter. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TL/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21