Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266NOMINAL INDEXM v. B, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256Girish Patil & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257Vincent Correa v. Viyola Prathvi Correa , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260Bharathi Education Society Trust...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
NOMINAL INDEX
M v. B, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
Girish Patil & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
Vincent Correa v. Viyola Prathvi Correa , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
Bharathi Education Society Trust v. State of Karnataka & Panchayat Development Officer, Grama Panchayat, Bharathinagara., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
Divisional Manager, Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Sri Satish S/o Basavaraj Kurubar, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
Gadilinga S/o Dodda Basappa v. State of Karnataka & Sharabhayya B., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
Y. Venkateshwara Prasad & Ors. v. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
Suresh Babu J.N. & Ors. v. Jaganmohan & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
K v. M., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
Husband Can't Seek Divorce Merely Because He Has 'Lost Interest' In Marriage: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M v. B
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 4343 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
Emphasising the sanctity of marriage under Hindu Law, the Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a husband's appeal seeking dissolution of his 21-year-old marriage, observing that one cannot walk away from a marital relationship merely on the ground that they no longer have 'interest' in it. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 256
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf, while dismissing the appeal against Family Court's rejection of his divorce application noted that the husband cannot be allowed to 'take advantage of his own wrong'.
“…The person who fell in love with the respondent and fathered a girl child who is now almost a major, has come before the Court stating that he is left with no interest in the marriage and therefore, decree of divorce be granted. The marriage under the Hindu Law is a sacrament and it is not a contract. Once the parties are married, the marriage is for life and one person cannot walk away from the marriage on the ground that he/she is left with no interest in the marriage with the other party”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Girish Patil & Anr. V. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P No. 101182 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a criminal petition filed by a journalist and an editor of a Newspaper Daily, accused of publishing a news report disclosing the identity of a child victim of assault. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 257
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde upheld the ongoing prosecution under Section 74(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. While doing so, the court noted that the publication of a child's name or school details is prohibited irrespective of whether the child is a 'victim, witness, or in conflict with law'.
“…No report in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or audio-visual media or other forms of communication regarding any inquiry or investigation or judicial procedure, shall disclose the name, address or school or any other particular, which may lead to the identification of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or witness of a crime, involved in such matter, under any other law for the time being in force, nor shall the picture of any such child be published”, the court underscored in its order.
Case Title: Vincent Correa v. Viyola Prathvi Correa
Case No: CRL.RP No. 870/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258
The Karnataka High Court has held that a father is obligated to bear the educational expenses of his unmarried daughter pursuing postgraduate medical studies under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, even after she has attained majority, observing that the parental obligation to provide education does not cease merely because the child has become an adult. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 258]
A Single Judge Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh dismissed a revision petition filed by the father against concurrent orders of the Trial Court and the District & Sessions Court directing him to pay ₹16 lakh towards his daughter's MD Dermatology course fees.
The Court held that educational expenses can be awarded as monetary relief under Section 20 of the DV Act, noting that deprivation of such financial support amounts to "economic abuse" under Section 3(d)(iv) of the Act.
"...While defining economic abuse, the Legislature has also included deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom. It is the custom and practice that everywhere in the world that parents are morally obligated to provide basic amenities, including health and education. If the contention of the petitioner that the child is not entitled to maintenance or educational expenses on attaining majority is accepted, the expression 'in addition to' employed in Section 20(1)(d) would be otiose..."
Case Title: P v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7053 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259
The Karnataka High Court today quashed an FIR registered against a family for the alleged theft of two cows, strongly criticising the police for registering the case nearly two years after the animals had gone missing and describing the episode as a "classic illustration of abuse of criminal justice system". [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 259]
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the petition filed by the accused, observed that the police machinery had been completely misused by the complainant, and the police registered the theft complaint without conducting any preliminary inquiry into whether the cows even belonged to the complainant.
Expressing shock at the police action, the Court orally remarked:
“...When somebody is killed, they [police] would be like 'wait, we are searching the cows'... Not saying animals should not be searched, but two years later you register a complaint?”
The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 4, had approached the High Court challenging Crime No. 47/2026 registered at MK Doddi Police Station under Section 303(2) (theft) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Case Title: TJ V. State Of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 34898/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260
The Karnataka High Court has held that a private Instagram chat between two classmates, in which a male student complimented his female classmate using what the Court described as “Gen Z lingo”, does not attract the offences of stalking, voyeurism or outraging the modesty of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 260]
A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while quashing the FIR registered against the student, also directed the Investigating Officer to immediately return the petitioner's laptop and mobile phone, if they had indeed been seized two years ago pursuant to the registration of the case.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by a college student against an FIR lodged over an Instagram direct message (DM) sent to his female classmate complimenting her appearance.
Quashing the proceedings, the Court observed:
“...The petitioner in his zeal communicates to the complainant by DM (direct message) on Instagram with regard to how the complainant looked on a particular day, describing her to be beautiful but in a Gen Z lingo… The trouble crops up to the student. A crime comes to be registered and the career of the petitioner is put to jeopardy… The entire fulcrum of the crime for the aforesaid offences revolves around the chat. The chat is not a public chat; it is a chat between two individuals i.e., petitioner and complainant… Yes, the particular word used is inappropriate but that's the word used by students these days....”
Case Title: M/S Bharathi Education Society Trustv. State of Karnataka & Panchayat Development Officer, Grama Panchayat, Bharathinagara
Case No: Writ Petition No. 18384 of 2026 (LB-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261
The Karnataka High Court has directed Bharathi Education Society Trust to replace course banners featuring the image of a person in advocates' attire, observing that such publicity could violate the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules prohibiting advertisements by individuals. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 261]
A single judge bench of Justice BM Shyam Prasad granted the Trust eight weeks to replace the banners while disposing of a petition challenging a communication dated June 2, 2026, issued by the Panchayat Development Officer of Bharathinagara Grama Panchayat in Mandya district.
“…it is seen that these buntings have the image of a person in what could be the attire prescribed for Advocates. The Bar Council of India Rules would be against any advertisement of an individual...”, the court noted.
The impugned communication stated that, although the Trust was permitted to display banners, they could not feature the image of any individual. It further noted that the Trust had failed to remove the banners despite having been served with a notice.
Case Title: Divisional Manager, Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Sri Satish S/o Basavaraj Kurubar
Case No: Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 24075 of 2013 (MV-I)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Motor Vehicle Tribunal granting compensation to a car owner after observing that he had filed a claim against the insurance company in respect of damage caused to his own car which is not permitted under the Section 166 MV Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 262]
The claimant, the owner of a car, alleged that due to the rashness and negligence of the driver, the claimant's car fell into a roadside canal. The lawyer preferred claim against the insurer seeking compensation for the loss he incurred.
Before the Motor Vehicle Tribunal, the insurance company contended that the claimant had approached the wrong forum for compensation for his own car, and that even the insurance policy was not registered in the claimant's name, but in the name of the previous owner.
Case Title: Gadilinga S/o Dodda Basappa v. State of Karnataka & Sharabhayya B
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 101461 of 2026 (482(CrPC)/528(BNSS))
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash an FIR registered against a lawyer for alleged extortion from a labourer to the tune of Rs 5 lakhs by impersonating a police officer, holding that the allegations prima facie disclos commission of a cognizable offence which requires further investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 263]
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, sitting at Dharwad, noted that the allegations in the Crime registered at Moka Police Station reveal prima facie elements of the
“…contents of the complaint do attract Section 308 of BNS. The reason is the contents of the complaint would indicate that, there was a demand by the petitioners who made a claim that they belong to the Police Department. It is not necessary that the petitioners should be wearing the police uniform at the time when they made the demand. Whether the demand was really made or whether the petitioners were present at the time of the alleged incident, whether the complainant paid ₹2,00,000/- and whether the petitioners refused ₹2,00,000/- are all the matters which require investigation….”, the court said.
Case Title: Y. Venkateshwara Prasad & Ors. v. The State Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Anr.
Case No: WP No. 13534 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed proceedings initiated against residents of an apartment complex under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, holding that the statute cannot be invoked to settle mundane civil disputes merely because one of the parties is a person with disability. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 264]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a plea filed by four residents of Adith Bhavan Apartment in K.R. Puram, challenging an order passed by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disability (PwD), issuing a warning to the petitioners based on a complaint filed by a physically disabled co-resident.
“…the authorities constituted under the Act are entrusted with specific statutory functions to address grievances arising from the denial or infringement of rights recognised under the enactment. Their jurisdiction…is confined to matters having a nexus with the rights and protections conferred by the statute. It cannot be expanded to encompass every dispute in which a person with disability is a party, irrespective of whether the dispute bears any connection to the rights created under the Act….”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Suresh Babu J.N. & Ors. v. Jaganmohan & Ors.
Case Nos: MFA No. 3477/2026, MFA No. 3478/2026, MFA No. 3479/2026, MFA No. 3480/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an order passed by a trial court, which only issues notice on an application for temporary injunction, would not constitute an appealable order under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of the CPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 265]
The single judge bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur, dismissing a batch of four appeals filed by plaintiffs, held that a trial court order issuing notice under Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, without granting or refusing the ad-interim injunction, would not be amenable to an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r).
“…when there is a clear remedy available under the Code of Civil Procedure as to what orders could be challenged under the appeal and what cannot be, it is not for this Court to get into the mind of the legislature to infringe into the legislature's forte…Therefore, it would not be appropriate for this Court to infringe into the wisdom of the legislature which conspicuously has not included Rule 3 of Order XXXIX in the appeal provisions provided under Order XLIII Rule 1 (r)”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: K v. M
Case No: Writ Petition No. 107250 of 2025 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a marriage solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, during the subsistence of an earlier marriage, is void ab initio, even if the parties are governed by a personal law that permits polygamy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 266]
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that such a marriage does not confer the status of a legally wedded wife upon the second spouse.
Noting the above, the court refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a woman who sought to be impleaded as a legal representative of her deceased husband in a partition suit.
The court held that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was in violation of Section 4(a) of the Special Marriage Act, which mandates that neither party should have a spouse living at the time of marriage.
“…Once parties voluntarily choose to solemnize their marriage under the Act, they are governed by the mandatory conditions prescribed therein. The statutory requirement that neither party should have a spouse living cannot be diluted by resorting to personal law or any equitable considerations… It is true that Mohammedan personal law, subject to the conditions and limitations recognised therein, permits a Muslim male to contract more than one marriage. Such permissibility, however, operates only within the domain of personal law governing marriages solemnized thereunder…”, the court observed in the order.