Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25036 (KAR)

SMT ANASU BAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/4964/2026 · 2026-06-29

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32247 WP No. 4964 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4964 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ANASU BAI C/O SRI. ERANNA BALUNDAGI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 10 A BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS, MAIGANDA DEVA MODALIYAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 005 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU 2. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULAKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE PULAKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, EAST DIVISION, BENGALURU 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE PULAKESHI NAGAR SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU 5. SRI. ERANNA NAGAPPA BALONDAGI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32247 WP No. 4964 of 2026 DRIVER IN CITY ARMED RESERVE (CAR) BENGALURU SOUTH C/O PULIKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.H. DEVARAJ, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI SURESH H.S., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 2.6.2025, 11.6.2025, 28.6.2025 AND 17.7.2025 VIDE ANNEXURES-L, N, P AND Q RESPECTIVELY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1. Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the Respondent No.1 to 4 to consider the Representations submitted by the Petitioner dated 2.6.2025, 11.6.2025, 28.6.2025 and 17.7.2025 vide ANNEXURES-L, N, P AND Q respectively. 2. Pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case, including an order as to costs, in the interest of justice. 2. The petitioner has submitted several representations dated 2.6.2025, 11.6.2025, 28.6.2025 and 17.7.2025 vide Annexures-L, N, P and Q respectively - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32247 WP No. 4964 of 2026 for allotment of quarters in the name of respondent No.5, who is the husband of the petitioner. 3. The submission of Sri Arun K.S., learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5 is strained and, as such, respondent No.5 is not taking care of the petitioner. He further submits that the quarters presently occupied by the petitioner, which had been allotted to respondent No.5, are in a dilapidated condition. While all other occupants have vacated the said quarters, the petitioner alone continues to reside therein. Since the petitioner is required to vacate the dilapidated quarters, a fresh quarters needs to be allotted by the respondent, is the representation made. 4. Learned AGA submits that respondent No.5 has stated that respondent No.5 does not wish to have any allotment of quarters in his name. 5. If that be so, there cannot be any vested right in the petitioner wife of respondent No.5 for allotment of a quarters when respondent No.5 does not wish any allotment to be made in his name. 6. Admittedly, the relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5 having been strained, public - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32247 WP No. 4964 of 2026 premises cannot be made a subject matter of dispute on account of their internal matrimonial disputes. 7. The petitioner has several alternative remedies which the petitioner can pursue for maintenance, share household etc., There being no vested right in the petitioner for the representation to be considered by respondents, a mandamus cannot be issued by this Court. 8. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedies as may be available under law, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64