Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 49947 (KAR)

SRI ZAMEER SHARIFF v. MRS HEENA KOUSAR

RPFC/13/2020 · 2026-01-21

Chillakur Sumalatha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3467 RPFC No. 13 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 13 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. ZAMEER SHARIFF S/O LATE TAHIR SHARIFF AWGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.86, 3RD CROSS, 'C' BLOCK, GHOUSIYANAGAR MYSURU - 570 019. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED KALEEM, ADVOCATE FOE SRI. LETHIF B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. HEENA KOUSER W./O ZAMEER SHARIFF D/O IQBAL AHAMAD, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 2. SHABNAM BHANU D/O ZAMEER SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS 3. UMME ARBIA D/O ZAMEER SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 9 YEARS RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3467 RPFC No. 13 of 2020 MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER MRS. HEENA KOUSAR, ALL ARE R/AT NO.55, B BLOCK, VANDEMATARAM, BANNIMANTAPA KAIGARIKA BADAVANE, MYSURU - 570 015. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.R. ROOPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1) THIS RPFC IS FILED UNDER SEC.19(4) FAMILY COURTS ACT., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2019 PASSED IN C.MIS.NO. 460/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.PC., FOR MAINTENANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3467 RPFC No. 13 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Sri. Mohammed Kaleem representing Sri. Lethif.B learned counsel on record for the petitioner submits that the matter is settled amicably between the parties and both parties are residing together. Learned counsel thereby seeks permission to withdraw the revision petition. 2. No representation on respondents side on call. 3. Permission as prayed for is accorded. Revision petition is thereby dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49