IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.12217 OF 2019 (GM - FC) BETWEEN:
MR.VIVEK DEVESHWAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AW2, FERN SAROJ 7TH CROSS, L B SHASTRI NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 017.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI.MANJUNATH H, ADVOCATE) AND :
MRS. ANUBHA DEVESHWAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O BG-1, NO.22 MILLENNIUM RESIDENCY K.G.COLONY, G.M.PALYA BANGALORE – 560 075.
PRESENTLY R/A:
FLAT NO.B-1, HOMETECH SOUNDARYA 9TH B MAIN, 7TH A CROSS L B SHASTRI NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 017.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI H.V.PRAVEEN GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.01.2019 ON I.A.NO.XLVIII IN G & WC NO.119/2009 I.E., ANNEXURE – F ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN THE EXPEDIENT INTEREST AND WELFARE OF THE MINOR MISS SHREYA DEVESHWAR AND ETC., - - -
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 02.01.2019 passed by the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, by which an application filed by the petitioner seeking interim custody of the child till new year vacation has been rejected with cost of Rs.500/-.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of the Family Court that the application has rendered infructuous on account of efflux of time. However, notwithstanding the fact that the application has been rendered infructuous and do not require any adjudication, the same was dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.500/-.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the order passed by the Family Court.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. In view of the fact that the application seeking interim custody filed by the petitioner was rendered infructuous on account of efflux of time and do not require any adjudication, there was no justification to impose cost of Rs.500/- on the petitioner and in rejecting application filed by the petitioner. The impugned order therefore suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and it is accordingly, quashed and set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB