Lalitha W/O Y Srinivas vs Y Srinivas on 16 September, 2009

1
IN THE HTGI-I COURT OF KARNATAKA. BNVGALORE

DATED THIS THE 18?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER; _
PRESENT _ '_]Ra
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICI§A»I§.SREEDIATA;'2: RAo_  O'
 40 A  A A 
THE HONBLE MR'. Jps*riC.E'  
M.F.A. NO.  QF' 2000510  
BETWEEN:--   R 1'  
SMT. LALITHA,
w/0. Y. SRINWAS,

AGED ABOUT 'YEAR:-'J-E    
R/AT NO_,76";  _;  "    .

11 s*rA.r}E.._ KUVEMPUI:\TAC~.AR,
MYSORE'.a:?.8.'-  ' _  '

 'V _    APPELLANT
(B? 831 T.N. "RAGHUPA'I'HY. ADVOCATE]

  
'S/0. LATE YALAKALAH,

A'GED_*AQB'UT 44 YEARS.
R/A..T'N.O.183. MARENAKALLI.

 _ TANKBUND AREA,

  "BANGALORE A 560 041.

 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR.

RESPONDENT

__§{BY SR1 MT. NANAIAH 3: ASSOCIATES. ADVOCATES}

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 47 (1) OF THE GUARDIANS
AND WARDS ACT 1890 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED: 08.06.2005 PASSED IN G 81 W.C. NO.

4/

2

124/2002 ON THE FILE or THE 11 ADot;;’PR:;,’d:;iE:GE.

FAMILY COURT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING”rTHErrPE’i.’l’FIQN’
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN U/S’»’?.,::9. 10 AND ii
or GUARDIAN AND WARDS Ac-T”s’ErEK1No_,’soR’oER To T
APPOINT THE RESPONDENT HERE1Nj:As,’r:sE. GvIJA_R£?£AN ‘

OF’ THE MINOR CHILD.

This appeal is on for ‘heavrin~gW”‘thiVs day’,

SREEDI-{AR RAO, J ., deiiVered.the_ioiiowingr’ ‘

The appgilant in child by name
S.Darshan The respondent
filed a to appoint guardian for
the of the child. The
appeiian’t.’_was ,.’:1O.JLiC€. But did not participate in
the_iurtherT1’1e family court on the basis of

L1’rioon.tested eifidence of the respondent, has aiiowed the

‘ ;.pet.iti’oVn”andzdirected the custody of the chiid in favour of the

” respondeht. The wife is in appeal.

it .. $2.,’ is submitted that the appeiiant had filed Misc.

2 » it Case C.P.No.-4’79/OS before this Court to transfer the case

Adpfrodrn Bangalore to Mysore. The said petition was aliowed by

order dated 27.8.03. the said order was not brought to the

notice of this Hon’b1e Court deiiberately by the respondent

*3
‘A

and he has obtained ex–parte order. The appella11ty’p.\’évho was

under the impression that because of the trans_fer’_o.t’_tliieyease

to Mysore, she would be served with

Therefore, she could not participate lirzthe The T.

reasons stated by the appellant :fo__r:’i1_er alaseriee ‘befolreyvthe

Family Court appears to be’trifiey and genuainle. ex–parte
order is passed without ju1’isdictionuf”l1jl that Vi’ewg the appeal
is allowed and the orderof f_e.oi;1r_t is set aside. The

matter is remitted at Mysore for fresh

disposal in’ a’e_eor{ja:1oe* lave

Sd/~
ssssss -A JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

NM’?