Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117Nominal Citation Shri Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107Directorate OF Enforcement v. ZO Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 108X v. Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109Shri V. Sivaprasad Reddy v. Smt Pillamma, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 110Y v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111Income Tax Officer and CPIO v....
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Nominal Citation
Shri Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Directorate OF Enforcement v. ZO Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
X v. Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
Shri V. Sivaprasad Reddy v. Smt Pillamma, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Y v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Smt. Sarbhanu Khatoon v. State of Karnataka., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
Chethan. S v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
M/S. Reward360 Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Smt. Laxmi Nagappa Kittur v. The Registrar General & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
U v. V, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Shri Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP No. 30006 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has called for the State's records to verify the implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure devised earlier this year to deal with the larger systemic issues in tracing the missing persons.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj addressed the bigger picture of untraceable disappearances while hearing the specific grievance about a missing person's FIR marked 'dormant' in 2022 without progress:
The court has now asked the State to submit a 'comprehensive compliance report' regarding the implementation of Standing Order 1054, which deals with a procedure to be followed on receipt of information about missing children/persons, by 10th April.
Entire Funds In Account Can't Be Presumed 'Proceeds Of Crime': Karnataka High Court In WinZO Case
Case Title: Directorate OF Enforcement v. ZO Pvt. Ltd
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 492 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
Allowing the WinZO group to make the payments to its employees from the company account frozen after money laundering allegations, the Karnataka High Court has held that the entire amount in the accounts of WinZO and its subsidiaries cannot be deemed as 'proceeds of crime'.
“…Apex Court has clearly held that the proceeds of crime have to be linked to a predicate offence and it is only such property which is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as 'proceeds of crime”, the Division Bench observed while referring to Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case.
Case Title: X v. Z
Case No: Crl. P No 470/ 2019, Crl P. No. 7922 OF 2018 & Crl. P No. 6031 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a 73-year-old husband, his alleged second wife, and his own children, holding that mere living in an 'illegal relationship' does not constitute marriage for the purpose of Section 494 IPC (marrying again during the lifetime of spouse).
“…it was incumbent upon the complainant [wife] to plead and prove that accused No.1 had married accused No.4. Mere living in a relationship, does not amount to a marriage and therefore, an offence under Section 494 of IPC was not made out by the complainant…”, the bench sitting at Bengaluru also clarified that the trial court's order of taking cognisance against the accused was not legally sound.
Case Title: Y v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Crl. P No 470/ 2019, Crl P. No. 7922 OF 2018 & Crl. P No. 6031 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a Child Marriage case against the groom as well as the families of the groom and the minor girl, by underscoring that ignorance of law or factum of a cordial marital relationship would not legalise the wrong already committed.
“Parents who ought to bless their daughters with encouragement, education and empowerment, instead bless them with premature matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would remain an illusive aspiration…”, the court strongly remarked.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna also warned that the liability for facilitating child marriages wouldn't be confined to the respective families or relatives alone. Even the temple and the officiating priests of such a marriage could be brought under the sweep of law. Similarly, even a marriage hall and its management may face the rigours of law for conducting child marriages, the court explained.
Case Title: Shri V. Sivaprasad Reddy v. Smt Pillamma
Case No: RFA 1796/2012
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie only when the probate court ventures to examine beyond the testamentary rights and determines proprietary civil rights of the parties involved.
“…where the probate court travels beyond the statutory limits of testamentary jurisdiction and undertakes a comprehensive adjudication of civil proprietary rights by interpreting title documents, determining the effect of partition, adjudicating possession or declaring ownership of the property, the character of the adjudication changes….”, the court observed.
Case title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another
Case No: Writ Petition No.34625 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has recently issued uniform, gender neutral, guidelines to be followed in 'maintenance' cases to apply for the financial records of their spouse, instead of resorting to the RTI Act.
The court added that the guidelines issued will apply to all Magistrate Courts, Family Courts, Sessions Courts and Appellate Courts within the State of Karnataka adjudicating maintenance/alimony proceedings.
The guidelines would also apply squarely to all designated officers and authorities of the Income Tax Department within the court's jurisdiction.
Case title: Smt. Sarbhanu Khatoon v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P. 2317/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 25-year-old woman, a resident of West Bengal, who was arrested for shouting the slogan 'Jai Bangla' during a demolition drive in Bengaluru this January.
The single judge bench of Justice S.Rachaiah noted that the woman had uttered 'Jai Bharath Mata Ki Jai' thrice after uttering 'Jai Bangla' once. A person had instigated the woman to shout 'Jai Bharath Mata Ki Jai' at first, the court observed in the bail order pronounced on 11th March.
Case Title: Chethan. S v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No.2 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Chief Minister's Office (CMO) should not directly entertain or interfere in the transfer and posting of government and public undertaking employees, while remarking that the 'highest authority of the State' has more important duties to perform.
A division Bench of Justice D.K Singh and Justice T.M Nadaf held that the appellant employee's current posting should not be disturbed until the next transfer season in April. Even in the case of transfer, the authorities should comply with the applicable transfer rules and policy, the court added.
“We are therefore, of the opinion that no request for transfer and posting should be entertained by the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister directly. The matter should end at the level of the department itself. Hon'ble Chief Minister has better and more important work to perform than interfering with the transfers and postings of the employees of the State Government and Government undertakings”, the court remarked that a copy of the order should also be sent to the Chief Minister's Office.
Case title: M/S. Reward360 Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.9356 Of 2025 C/W Criminal Petition No.9844 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Granting interim custody of seized items to the accused hacker in the Reward360 cyber fraud case, the Karnataka High Court has held that valuable articles cannot be kept idle in police custody for an unduly long period merely because there are 'rival claims' over their ownership.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz set aside a Magistrate Court order that had rejected applications for interim custody filed by both the accused[hacker] and the de facto complainant [Reward360].
Case Title: Smt. Laxmi Nagappa Kittur v. The Registrar General & Ors.
Case No: WA 100548/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which had held that a married daughter living in her husband's home cannot seek compassionate appointment on the ground of her father's death.
In doing so, the court said that compassionate appointment aims to provide relief for 'immediate financial distress' to a 'family in crisis' following the death of an employee.
The court was hearing a woman's appeal seeking compassionate appointment after father's death. Her writ petition had been rejected by the single judge who had held that appellant was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as she was a married daughter and had not made out grounds for appointment on compassionate ground.
Case title: U v. V
Case No: Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
In a child custody battle, the Karnataka High Court has recently held that the 'ordinary residence' of the child will be the determining factor to decide the applicable jurisdiction. The High Court underscored that though the father retains his right to seek custody, he must do so in the U.S. Courts where the child ordinarily resides.
Asking the father to return the custody of his minor son to the mother in the United States, the court opined that uprooting a child from their natural, social and academic environment would be against the 'welfare of the minor' by relying on Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, (2019) 7 SCC 311.