IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 30m DAY OF NOVEMBER BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEAJIT _ A A
WRIT PETITION NO.27053/2’C6S§A[GJTx?[:§I5C}f\’.__,_”
BETVVEEN :
Mrs.Rash:mi Madhava,
Aged about 34 years, v A ‘
W/o.Mr.Yog1’sh Kode,
R/0.217, 31″ Cross, H
“S0udhami11i”,Ka1aya17a _
Ma11tapRoad,¥ A
New Bank ” Q ” ‘ ‘
Konanakunie, ‘ ._
Bangalore—e_5€;jO …PETITIONER
(By s::1t.B;jsLi;n:a1a, for
‘Sri’.M.V’V;Man;uha_th, Adv.)
‘ abO1.1_i’ 3′? ..y<':3,rs,
S",'.<_);'1\.e1;<.K'.Raj_ag,a'palachar,
Permanent1y':§csidi11g at 10876,
_ N orthridgve Square,
– – ,. , ‘£.’,L1perti’no._’1- Caiifornia,
‘L.;.::.;x,,_ 95014.
A 1’€<_)&*;'»cé1.mp at "Shreyas", 684,
». 14-'? A"1\/Iain, 51-" Block,
_Jaj_;fianagar, Bar1ga1ore~560 O41. K..RE'SPONDENT
[By Sri.P.B.Appaiah, Adv. for R1)
conditions including deposit of passport, directing the
husband to execute a personal. bond for eertai13.f_'sii'rri
and he is aiso required to furnish the current : C'
" the Court and the custody of theehild it
husband for a period of
Vacation, 2009. The saiddorrder is"quess¢né'df"in' this
writ petition.
2. This Court writ petition
did not grant directed the
husband td with this Court
and also ts offundertaking. This Court
also perinitptded Jvisit the husband’s house
V betweefi 5.00′ 6.00 pm. to talk to the Child to
being. it is to be noticed that the
iriterim V”;ar’ifva_n’=_3fernent was oniy during the Dasara
V .Vaca.tion,”-~V:js.Jv’r1ich has spent itself. An application is
it bjrvddthe husband for return of the passport, which
«.fj\.-vas deposited in this Court.
8. Smt.B.Surnan. learned counsel appearing for
Mr.M.V.l\/Iangunatha, for the wife asserts that…__ the
husband made several applications one after
She submits that if the passport is to be M
will be on condition that the hu’s’band
any applications either for
permanent custody of the
4. Mr.P.B.Appaiah:7 appearing for
the husband s:;:brnits”‘ lwhenever an
3PI3lication_i–9l’m3fi:5’_ , the husband is
put on eorfiiitions including deposit of
passportlwlhieh He submits that the
inipuggned orderdilsvlspent itself. Hence, the petition has
beeonielinfruetuous.
Apipiarently, the impugned order was passed
fosjia limited period ie, for about a weeks time
it Dasara Vaeation%’2009, which is already over.
Hence, I am of the View that the petition has already
* become infructuous. In so far as the prayer of the
/
J
-6-
appiieation filed by either of the parties seeking reliefs.
Having regard to the fact that no useful purp0s.e’~._\fve»_L1~£;1
be served by keeping this matter pending, =
stands disposed of.
Registry to return the pass}:§’0rtL’_’_ ”
§UI)GE