Sri. Amith R. Reddy vs Smt. Asha .L
2021 Latest Caselaw 2413 Kant

                            -: 1 :-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                            PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

                                 AND

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

                 M.F.A. No.2536/2021 (GW)

BETWEEN:

SRI. AMITH R. REDDY
S/O. B.C. RAMACHANDER REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.7,
1ST 'C' MAIN ROAD,
OMBR LAYOUT MAIN ROAD
DODDA BANASWADI,
BENGALURU - 560 043.                              ... APPELLANT

(BY SRI THIRUVENGADAM B.C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. ASHA .L
D/O. LAXMIPATHI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.42,
BANDE BOMMASANDRA
DODDA GUBBI POST,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU - 560 077.                           ... RESPONDENT

                             *****

       THIS MFA IS       FILED    UNDER SECTION    47 OF THE
GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, 1890, PLEASED TO SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.04.2021 PASSED BY THE IX
ADDITIONAL      SENIOR    CIVIL    JUDGE,   BENGALURU    RURAL
DISTRICT AT BANGALORE, IN G & W.C. NO.21/2019, WHEREIN,
THE     TRIAL    COURT     REJECTED     THE    INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION NO.4 FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION
                                 -: 2 :-

153 R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CPC., SEEKING REVIEW OF
ORDER DATED 17.11.2020, PASSED BY THE LD. TRIAL JUDGE
ON I.A.NO.1 FILED BY THE APPELLANT, SEEKING CUSTODY OF
HIS   MINOR     DAUGHTER,       AND   GRANT     CUSTODY     OF    THE
PETITIONER'S MINOR DAUGHTER TO HIM PENDING DISPOSAL
OF THE SAID PROCEEDINGS IN G & W.C.NO.21/2019, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


      THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                         JUDGMENT

Office has raised an objection with regard to

maintainability of the appeal as the impugned order is

passed on an interim application (I.A.No.1), filed under

Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the

appellant.

3. Office is right in raising the said objection.

Hence, the said objection is sustained. The appeal is

hence, dismissed as it is not maintainable reserving

liberty to the appellant to seek any other appropriate

remedy in accordance with law.

4. Office to return certified copy of the impugned

order and other documents, which are certified copies to

the appellant's counsel forthwith so as to enable the

appellant to seek any other appropriate remedy subject to

filing copies of the same for the purpose of record.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE S*