Karnataka High Court
Sri. Sudarshan A.W. Perera vs Anitha A.W. Perera on 11 June, 2020
Bench: Aravind Kumar, Ravi V Hosmani
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.4517 OF 2015 (GW/WC)
BETWEEN:
Sri Sudarshan A.W. Perera
S/o Pransis Perera,
Aged about 34 years,
Resident of Matasagara village,
Sakaleshpur Taluk - 573 134
Hassan District.
...APPELLANT
(By Sri Chetan B, Advocate.)
AND:
1. Anitha A.W. Perera,
W/o Sudarshan A.W. Perera
Major,
C/o Gopi House,
Halesanteveri Layout,
Sakaleshpur Nagar 573 134
Hassan District
2
2. The Chairperson,
Child Welfare Committee
Department of Women and Child Department,
Government Boys Home,
Park Road,
Hassan 573 201
Hassan District
...RESPONDENTS
(By Smt. B.V. Nidshree, Advocate for R.1)
(Smt. A.R.Sharadamba, AGA, for R.2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47(1) OF
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 2.1.2014 PASSED
IN G & W.C.NO.6/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE, JMFC., SAKALESHPUR, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 7
OF THE GUARDIAN AND WARDS ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been listed for admission. Appellant herein is the petitioner in G & W.C.No.6/2013 which had been presented by him seeking Guardianship of his minor daughter Kum. Siyana A.W. Perera. Said petition after trial came to be allowed in part and only 3 visitation rights came to be granted to the petitioner - appellant. Being aggrieved by the rejection of granting the prayer for custody as prayed for, present appeal came to be filed. Prior to filing of said petition itself, appellant had initiated proceedings in M.C.No.25/2012 on the file of Civil Judge( Sr.Dn.) & JMFC., Sakaleshpura, against respondent herein for divorce on the ground of adultery. It is now reported by the learned counsel for appellant that a settlement has been arrived at in the said proceedings i.e., M./C.No.25/2012 between the parties by filing a compromise petition, which came to be recorded on 20.07.2016, whereunder respondent herein has agreed that custody of minor daughter Kum.Siyana A.W. Perera would be with the appellant. In fact, this Court by order dated 04.08.2015 had permitted custody of minor child daughter to be with the appellant.
2. In view of subsequent development viz., appellant and respondent having entered into 4 compromise in MC.No.25/2012, wherein respondent is said to have agreed for custody of minor daughter Kum. Siyana A.W. Perara to be with appellant, continuation of the present proceedings is not called for.
Hence, recording submission of learned counsel appearing for appellant, we dispose of this appeal by placing submission made by learned counsel for appellant on record.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*