{"id":90285,"date":"2008-09-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2"},"modified":"2016-10-25T18:59:57","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T13:29:57","slug":"b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Manjula Chellur Malimath<\/div>\n
 \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA  \" \u00ab x \n\nBATED THIS THE 24?\" DAY   \n\nPRE*aS ENfF A  \nTHE HONBLE MR$_.JUS1'{C F;\n\nTHE HON?B1,E :\u00bbi.AL1MA'rH\n\n \n\nMISCELLAN   A  \nB.G.Mahe$h'   \nS\/O Govindaiah  =\n\nAged 38  V _\n  '\n\n *  R;\u00a7a1x:g;22, 5'r\ufb02Main Road\n\n  B.a_nga1g:e\u00a7-5\u00a7eo72.\n\n. .AP\u00b0PELLANT\n\n%% %  (BY  iiumcajc Ramamsma Bhat, Advocate)\n\n AND \"1\n\n3 'T  A \nVW'\/6 B.(}.Mahesh\n\nAged 31 years\n\n   'R\/at RAJSHREE\n\n\/'\n\nNo.23, 451 Main, 6\"! Cross\nNavodaya Nagar,J.P.Nagar 7* Phase\nBangalore~--560 0'78. . . RESPONDENT'<\/pre>\n
(BY Sri-Vasantn miaik, Advocate.)<\/p>\n
-3…\n<\/p>\n
was filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), <\/p>\n
 Court, Tumkur. The said application
\ndismissed as one ef the parties is.” im}{ ” = <\/p>\n
withdrew his mnsent for  {if If’ :1; ‘A<\/p>\n
3. Meanwhile, the  &ppma_    “jthc ” V<\/p>\n
ooncemed   and mm a
\npetition for  ‘V  Act. The
\nsaid case   the Family Court,
\n  1 ”  \ufb01xed G 8: WC
\nNo. 164x’\/”    of the child under Section<\/p>\n
25 qf’th\u00a7    Act on the ground that he<\/p>\n
  guard” “”  cf the mmor male child who is<\/p>\n
I      Ther\ufb01orc, the custody of the child<\/p>\n
mum   over to him for 3. limited period that is<\/p>\n
 .VL (121..v1__’ng’ Vi\u00e9cilool vacation and week ends. Dmm g the
\n   of the said proceedings wverai applications<\/p>\n
 “came to be \ufb01led by both the parties. However, We are<\/p>\n
only concerned with the orders on I.A.\\\/III wrath was<\/p>\n
\ufb01led under Order’? Rule 11′ of UPC read witt; .,<\/p>\n
151 of CPC for reject:rb n of the petition’ . m  <\/p>\n
complying with the c:onditions:”\u00e9bnta1\ufb01p}a$( l:\n<\/p>\n
section 25 of the Guardian _& wards. is  <\/p>\n
removing the child from   the
\nnatuml guardian by  -learned Judge
\nafter hearing    to the
\ndecisions    :;IACOB v. JACOB
\n   1973 so 2090 and
\nalso in : \ufb011e-  ALIAS PARIMALA v. N.\n<\/p>\n
RAN’GAPP}’\u00a3  2004 KARNA’i’AKA 299<\/p>\n
    .mt.i:i:ion \ufb01led under Section 25 by<\/p>\n
 beginning of para.-9 that the material<\/p>\n
pxaaeci’ on  did not indicate that the minor child<\/p>\n
 _ \ufb02inidithuya ixraa taken away from the custody of the father.\n<\/p>\n
‘   .9},  ‘Aggievcd by this order, the present appeal is filed<\/p>\n
”  bj\u00e9fthe appellanvfathcr seeking restoration ef the matter<\/p>\n
V  .  that he wouid be able to not only establish the fact of<\/p>\n
_’5_<\/p>\n
e 11. A person applying for
\nunder Secttlon 25 of the Act must
\nguardicm am to cuemczy is not a.  ere.  A’
\nproperty but is in the
\nbenefit of the chiici An    <\/p>\n
25 of the Act for retumgr <\/p>\n
guardu:m\u00b0 cannot be  we <\/p>\n
eetamshed that  \ufb01bm
\ncustody of the    -ta’ enable
\nan   ”    ”  Section
\n25 of  must be
\n   person of the
\nnenor  of the minor and
\n  removed  the
\n ewe   and in the opimbn of<\/p>\n
  ceurt,  be in the interest and
\n ‘  .,we_y”ere%V&bf._tIme minor thai the minor should be
\n ._    custody ofthe guardu:m’ .\n<\/p>\n
 The evidence ofPW-3 who is the elder<\/p>\n
L. _ ”  sister ofthe respondent and that ofPW-2 is a
\nH x   of the respondent wouid ciearlxy go<\/p>\n
toshowthattheappellarttnolunecmlyle\ufb02the
\nmatrimonial house and went away to
\nCharlnrayagzmna\ufb01wauega\ufb01onisthat\ufb01w<\/p>\n
we<\/p>\n
    :   for the appeilant also reliml on AER<\/p>\n
j<\/p>\n
appellant was eioped by her
\nP.L9mail on 25-11–1999, Ieaving
\nminor was with me
\nregistration of  1}’d;’3.$?”9’f’2\u00a7)O0&’\u00aba1tdVAz}Lat
\nthe minor was
\nwhen    custody
\n  bf?  -:5arI.s\u00e9nt of the
\n ‘  respondent has
\n  ‘ to cdiaw
\n_ under Section 25 of
\ntIAie.V_Act cm\u00e9i-jkto  the relief envisaged’ in
\n   ‘ <\/p>\n
   paragraphs 14 8: 15 which reads as
\n1l}1i(i\u20acI’I-* ‘M v <\/p>\n
 ~  ‘win our opinion $.25 qfthe Guardians and
\n Wards Act oontempiates not only actuai
\nphysical custody but also constructive
\ncustody afthe guardian which term includes
\nail categories afguardians. The object and<\/p>\n
mg-\n<\/p>\n
pwpase of tins pmvis\ufb01m being  kt:a%    .
\nensure the welfare of the minor  %
\nright of his guardian to
\nthe warcl’s heal&’ifx,’  <\/p>\n
object  not be
\nanowedftp   qr the
\n    dutiw and<\/p>\n
 ward so as to<\/p>\n
M,   cusma of A13-t was
\n  alias Mary cmd it is not
\n _ ‘vv.;\u00a7p~\u00a2ratta_\ufb011e Court under the Guardians and
\n to mm’ or deaeare gum-cum’ of
\n ofhis children under 3.19 during
\n”  ifthe Court does not consider<\/p>\n
ftimunjigtfnergtlzeonlypmvisiontowhich
\nthefc\u00a3thera1nhaveresortfarhischi\u00a3dren’s
\ncustody is $25, Without, therefore, laying
\ndown eachaustively the wcumstances in
\nwi1ichS.25canbeinvoicedinouropin\u00a3on,on<\/p>\n
tfzefactscuzdetmzcesoftfalszxaetfae<\/p>\n
husbands application under 3.25
\ncompetent with rwpect to the two
\nchildren. The Court was ennued to I f   _<\/p>\n
properly raised bqore it”io <\/p>\n
cruze:mn.’ W:’\u00a3h’_r’\u20ac$p\u00e9\u00a2t e’:gwmh’e’
\nDivorce Act__is ‘   \u00e9ci to make
\n   custody’<\/p>\n
  to the
\n ‘    to Mt up mm<\/p>\n
pee  ee\u00a3’LauW  thequwttam q”the<\/p>\n
5. ., vhof\ufb01t   which’ is wither” ‘ ‘ the power<\/p>\n
  eat? to the  ‘s<\/p>\n
  am his  ‘ – shouid be<\/p>\n
 But whether the respondent’s prayer for
\ncustodyofthemirwrcluldrvenbeamsidered<\/p>\n
under the Guardians and Weeds Act or
\nu.ndertheIndicmDivomeA<:t,asohsw'vedby
\nMahartyan J., with which observation we<\/p>\n
-19..\n<\/p>\n
right oftheirparentsi It   .
\nthat under the   <\/p>\n
oon1m\u00a3\u00a3mg’ canszdez-man’ ‘ iii.-_eu
\nunder 325  was hot
\npmanzy’ *  wev’w~e
\n    case with ail
\n ‘ ”   be em-:–cm
\n ‘     of an the<\/p>\n
;=hq$t\u00a3$E>gVdebici\u00e9dvon its ownfaczs andather<\/p>\n
‘    …..  serve as I . i.\n<\/p>\n
 tlwfadts of two cases in this
\n  seldom- if ever  me
\n  that fftiw hrusbtmd is not un\ufb01t to<\/p>\n
 guardian ofhis minor children, then,<\/p>\n
ofthez’rweIfm’edoesnotw all
\n‘arise is tostate thepmpmition C2 b\ufb02 too<\/p>\n
broadly and m@ at times be somewhat
\nmisleading.!tdoesn.ottaIce\ufb011llnoticecy”the
\nrealoom qfthestatzdorypui. Inawr<\/p>\n
         mm<\/p>\n
   %   semess ajfection
\n the parents for their
\n  between the mother and
\n   about the custody qftheirchildren,
\n   has to be somewhat dz_\ufb02%ren1’<\/p>\n
~ _ ;BenchqftheHighoowtinthiscase. There is<\/p>\n
…13_…\n<\/p>\n
quwtion due regard has
\nto the right of’tIzefat}__zer   <\/p>\n
presumption   would do
\ntheir  be;st’–vf:i:’~’p9’a;:1p\u00a7\u00e9’v_ children’s
\nwevw\u00e9   not wdw<\/p>\n
no dichom between the\ufb01tnms of the
\nfathertnbeentrustedwiththecustodyaffus<\/p>\n
welfare. Tlwfatherb\ufb01trwsshastobe
\nconsidered, determined and weighed<\/p>\n
-12..\n<\/p>\n
predommanti’ y in terms of the weifaw of ;’; : . :   _
\nminor children in the context of _a\u00a3I. _ t.\u00a5;e={:: _<\/p>\n
relevant circumstances. 9″        <\/p>\n
\n\nhe cannot claim  \nno eat in his   he\nms mrm        man\nevery    the only\ntwo befdmiis. W\" from\n    on the\n  against the wife\n<\/pre>\n
wiulch-%\u00a2_;’n   he was not at all<\/p>\n
– _    decisions, had to be
\n custody of the children’ in the
\n _  pb\u00e9zitofniewjzestnwnubnedomznotamrnde<\/p>\n
children. No doubt, thefmher has been
\npresumped by the statutegenerally to be
\nbetter\ufb01ztedtoiookcz\ufb01erthechilclrenmbeing
\nnonnailytheeamingmembercmd headof<\/p>\n
-1′-\n<\/p>\n
because qf her profession and   _ ‘
\nresources, zna3;be’wzapos\u00a3tiontogyag\u20ac”zz;1t\u00a7\u00a7e %
\nbetter health, edumsion    \u00e9<\/p>\n
Absoiute right qf   the
\nmodem clzarlgeciggielded in
\nbeings   in a normal
\n   members of<\/p>\n
  court in case of
\n  mother and the father,<\/p>\n
is’   a just and proper”\n<\/p>\n
ju  requirements afweyhre
\n  afrng  and the rights of their
\n   over them. The approach
\n  afme  single Judge, in our view, was<\/p>\n
 .’t”heLette1s<\/p>\n
. “1Ffa:tentbe2whonappea1seemstousmImw
\n erred in reversinghimongraunds whichwe
\ncaeunabletaappredate.\n<\/p>\n
15.Atthebarrs<,:ferenoewasmadetoa
\nnumberofdealsiedoasesontfsequmtionof<\/p>\n
-15-<\/span><\/p>\n
the right offazther to be appointed ordeclmed
\nas guwdimz and to be granted custody
\nminor children under 9.25 read with s.
\nthe Guardians and Wards Act  I<\/p>\n
peculiar facts. We
\nconsidered it necessary ‘to    :3<\/p>\n
mew” we have taken ofS.25 of    <\/p>\n
and Wards Ac:-,   to: be
\nWe have gall;    so also the
\nrelevant   learned oounaeis.
\n ‘a  for divorce by Inutuai
\ncon*.se1 i\u00a3  parties the fact nzmam’ 5<\/p>\n
one_ of   proceedings -the appellant<\/p>\n
   zth\ufb02xi\u00e9r””‘of the child withdrew his consent.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘I’i;\u00e9ref\u00a7_\u00a7nji  was no consent decree of divorce in<\/p>\n
 pf’  said joint memo. in that View of the<\/p>\n
 matt\u00e9I’,__ i1one of the terms and conditions mentioned in<\/p>\n
joint petition mm under Sec\ufb01on 13-(B) would bind<\/p>\n
-15..\n<\/p>\n
any of the parties. Section 25 of Guardian   _
\nwouid be the relevant prmdsiqx; to _-  \u00ab.t;1″;\u00a7: ‘ ~ V.
\nreasoning of the Ctaurt below for<\/p>\n
petition on an applimazion 2 {if  v<\/p>\n
CFC. Section 25 of the_    as
\nunder\u00bb V x j . A L ,    .,
\n*  of
\nwant %-_V     is\ufb01zmoved from
\nthe   person, the
\nczgura, aft:-.at it will be for the
\n  to the custody of
\n purpose of enfommg the
\n%  “~~~~ethewardtobean-estedand<\/p>\n
 into the custody of the<\/p>\n
 (2) For thepurpose ofarresting the ward,
\n a Magzszrate ofthe\ufb01zst class by Sectionlo\ufb02
\nofthe Code ofcr\u00e9minai Procedure, 1882110 of
\n1882).\n<\/p>\n
…2g…\n<\/p>\n
consideration and disposal on merits after <\/p>\n
opportunity to lead evidence to both the par!:ie\u00a7.’ C
\nThe petition shall be disposed of as  <\/p>\n
as possible not later than 6 moliths .  61′-3 K 2<\/p>\n
receipt of copy of the order. V<\/p>\n
O\ufb01icc is directed to rgmit the_,\u00a2nt\u00a7x*e <\/p>\n
to the Court beiow.\n<\/p>\n
The parties  #9″ the Court
\nbelow on 22-   ‘  .’ V<\/p>\n
saf-\n<\/p>\n
judge<\/p>\n
        saJ’\\…\n<\/p>\n
‘$3,696<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008 Author: Manjula Chellur Malimath IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ” \u00ab x BATED THIS THE 24?” DAY PRE*aS ENfF A THE HONBLE MR$_.JUS1′{C F; THE HON?B1,E :\u00bbi.AL1MA’rH MISCELLAN A B.G.Mahe$h’ S\/O Govindaiah = Aged […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-90285","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nB G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-25T13:29:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"B G Mahesh S\\\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\\\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T13:29:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":1301,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2\",\"name\":\"B G Mahesh S\\\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\\\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-25T13:29:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"B G Mahesh S\\\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\\\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-25T13:29:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T13:29:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2"},"wordCount":1301,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2","name":"B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-25T13:29:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/b-g-mahesh-so-govindaiah-vs-smt-r-hema-wo-b-g-mahesh-on-24-september-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"B G Mahesh S\/O Govindaiah vs Smt R Hema W\/O B G Mahesh on 24 September, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=90285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/90285\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=90285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=90285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=90285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}