Ms. Deeksha D/O Seetharama Vs. Seetharama Shetty S/O Devappa Shetty

Ms. Deeksha D/O Seetharama vs Seetharama Shetty S/O Devappa Shetty

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 04, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907853

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/907853
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: Mohan Shantanagoudar J.
Decided On: Nov 04, 2010
Case Number: WRIT PETITION N0.33613 OF 2010 (GM-FC)
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR J.] This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the R2 and R3 obey the order passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalore D.K., in M.C. No.64/2008 filed as Annexure-A.

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ms. Deeksha D/O Seetharama

Advocate Lex Justicia, Adv

Respondent

Seetharama Shetty S/O Devappa Shetty

Excerpt

[mohan shantanagoudar j.] this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, praying to direct the r2 and r3 obey the order passed by the i addl. civil judge, junior division, mangalore d.k., in m.c. no.64/2008 filed as annexure-a.order1. petitioner has sought for the following relief:-"wherefore the petitioner humbly prays that this hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to obey the order passed by the i addl. civil judge, junior division, mangalore, d.k. in mc.no.64/2008 filed as annexure-a to this writ petition and for such other writ or order on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice"such a relief cannot be granted in the writ petition. if the first respondent has not obeyed the order passed in mc.no.64/2008, it is open for the petitioner to initiate action in accordance with law to execute the order.2. it is brought to the notice of the court by sri srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already taken steps to execute the order granting maintenance. in spite of issuing arrest warrant, etc., the first respondent is evading of the legal process.if respondent no.1 is evading process of law, it is open for the court below to take stringent action against him in accordance with law. therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, with an observation that the petitioner may approach the court below before whom the matter is pending, to take such coercive steps as are open in law against respondent no.1, for getting the order of maintenance executed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Petitioner has sought for the following relief:-

"Wherefore the Petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to obey the order passed by the I Addl. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangalore, D.K. in MC.No.64/2008 filed as Annexure-A to this Writ Petition and for such other Writ or order on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice"

Such a relief cannot be granted in the writ petition. If the first respondent has not obeyed the order passed in MC.No.64/2008, it is open for the petitioner to initiate action in accordance with law to execute the order.

2. It is brought to the notice of the Court by Sri Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already taken steps to execute the order granting maintenance. In spite of issuing arrest warrant, etc., the first respondent is evading of the legal process.

If respondent No.1 is evading process of law, it is open for the Court below to take stringent action against him in accordance with law. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed, with an observation that the petitioner may approach the Court below before whom the matter is pending, to take such coercive steps as are open in law against respondent No.1, for getting the order of maintenance executed.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2010 Same Parties Ms. Deeksha D/O Seetharama vs Seetharama Shetty S/O Devappa S... Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Mohan Shantanagoudar J.

Land Acquisition