Raju @ Muniraju vs Alice Marie
2024 Latest Caselaw 953 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Raju @ Muniraju vs Alice Marie on 10 January, 2024

Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry

                                         -1-
                                                NC: 2024:KHC:1266-DB
                                                MFA No. 4884 of 2023




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                    DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
                                    PRESENT

               THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

                                         AND

              THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

             MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4884 OF 2023 (IDA)

             BETWEEN:

             RAJU @ MUNIRAJU
             S/O BASAPPA,
             AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
             NANJARSAPPA LAYOUT,
             BEHIND CANARA BANK COLONY,
             NAGARABHAVI ROAD,
             BENGALURU 72.
                                                     ...APPELLANT

             (BY SRI. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA K., ADVOCATE)
Digitally    AND:
signed by
SHAKAMBARI
Location:    ALICE MARIE
HIGH COURT
OF           W/O RAJU @ MUNIRAJU,
KARNATAKA
             AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
             R/AT NO.5, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
             SRIGANDHANAGAR,
             HEGGANAHALLI,
             VISHWANEEDAM.
                                                     ...RESPONDENT

                  THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.55 OF
             INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
             DT.19.04.2023 PASSED IN MC NO.391/2015 ON THE FILE OF
             THE IV ADDITIONAL PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU,
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC:1266-DB
                                            MFA No. 4884 of 2023




DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S.10(1)(x) OF INDIAN
DIVORCE ACT.

    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, DR.H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              ORDER

The learned counsel for the appellant, who is

physically present, appears to have herself not aware of

the outstanding office objections for compliance and

regarding the payment of the costs. It is only after the

Court brought to her notice that the registry has noticed

that the payment of the cost has not been reported as per

the direction dated 05.01.2024, the learned counsel

submits that she would pay the cost.

2. According to the registry, the office objections

which are five in number are still open for their

compliance, which the appellant has not done.

3. Under the said circumstances, considering the

fact that, even after granting several and sufficient

opportunities of not less than six times and also imposing

the cost, the appellant has neither evinced any interest for

NC: 2024:KHC:1266-DB

payment of the costs nor shown any convincing reasons

for not doing the needful. Hence, it is inferred that the

appellant is not interested in complying with the office

objections and prosecuting the matter further.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed for non-

compliance of office objections.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

PSJ List No.1 : Sl.No.13