IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6518 OF 2018 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
M.S. RAGHU S/O. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT No.27, 2ND MAIN, BAMBOO BAZAR MYSURU – 01 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.N. BHAT, ADV.) AND:
PRIYANKA W/O. M.S. RAGHU D/O. B.N. NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/O. No.173, 12TH MAIN, 22ND CROSS, ‘D’ BLOCK, J.P. NAGAR MYSURU – 575 003 ...RESPONDENT [BY SMT. BHARATHI M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE] THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. FAMILY COURT, MYSURU IN M.C. NO.373/2015 DTD: 30.08.2016 [ANNEXURE-D] ONLY WITH RESPECT TO VISITING RIGHTS OF THE CHILD.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs. Bharathi M., learned Counsel for Mr. Venkatesh R. Bhagat, learned Counsel for the respondent.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, seeks modification of the order passed by the Principal Family Court, Mysuru, in M.C. No.373/2015 dated 30.08.2016 only with respect to the visiting rights of the son of the parties.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
4. Admittedly, parties had entered into an agreement and the same was duly reduced into writing on 25.08.2016. The petitioner, under the terms and conditions of the aforesaid agreement, had agreed that he shall not claim right of visiting rights in respect of the child, namely, Vivan. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement arrived at between the parties, the decree was passed by the Family Court, Mysuru, dissolving the marriage of the parties.
5. Admittedly, after the passing of the decree, petitioner as well as the respondent have again re- married. This petition has been filed after a period of approximately more than one and half years, after entering into memorandum of agreement by the petitioner. No explanation has been offered for the delay caused in filing the petition. Even otherwise, petitioner has entered into the agreement voluntarily with his eyes wide open. It is not the case of the petitioner that the agreement was entered into on account of any coercion or fraud. In the fact situation of the case and in particular, taking into account the fact that the parties have moved ahead in their lives and remarried, I am not inclined to interfere with the writ petition. In the result, I do not find any merit in the writ petition.
Writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-