- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27791 RPFC No. 274 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 274 OF 2025 BETWEEN: JAGDISHA SON OF LATE S. LINGANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BLOCK TECHNICAL MANAGER (BTM), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, CHAMARAJANAGAR, CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 570 023. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VENKATASWAMY M, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) AND: 1. SMT. KAVITARANI S.P WIFE OF JAGADEESHA L AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. AKSHAY A SON OF JAGADEESHA L AGED 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27791 RPFC No. 274 of 2025 BOTH ARE RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 255, LIG, G-3, KHB COLONY, HOOTAGALLI VILLAGE, VTC BELAVADI P.O., BELAVADI SUB DIVISION, MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 023 AND ALSO AT NO. 1476, FIRST FLOOR, 9TH CROSS, NAIDU STORE, SRIRAMPURA, MYSORE - 570 023. …RESPONDENTS THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN CASE CRL. MIS. NO. 422/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE III. ADDL. PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27791 RPFC No. 274 of 2025 ORAL ORDER No representation on petitioner's side on call. The revision petition was filed in the month of September 2025 and till now office objections are not complied. On 21.04.2026 following order was passed. "None appears. On perusal of the order sheet, it is observed that, already time was granted to comply the office objections. As a last chance, post this matter after Summer Vacation, 2026, for compliance of office objections. If the office objections are not complied by the next date of hearing, the petition stands dismissed automatically". Even on passing the aforementioned order, petitioner has not chosen to comply the office objections. Also there is no representation. Therefore, it is clear that petitioner is not diligent in pursuing the matter. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed for non compliance of office objections. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5