LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: August 31 To September 6, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332NOMINAL INDEXNaveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr..., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321S v. N, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322Sheela S v State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324R.GOVINDA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325Smt Sheela S vs State of...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
NOMINAL INDEX
Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr..., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
S v. N, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
Sheela S v State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
R.GOVINDA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
Smt Sheela S vs State of Karnataka & others,, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 326
G v. M, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
Dr Adnan Saeed v. Smt. Vandana Sharma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
Ravi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
X v/s State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
X v. Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
SRI. SATHISH N. VAIDYA & OTHERS vs MR. M.P. NORONHA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
Case Title: AR v State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6103/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to a man booked under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that accidentally coming in front of a woman while answering nature's call, without any sexual intent, would not by itself constitute the offence.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321]
The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed:
"The petitioner, admittedly, even according to the complaint, was answering nature's call. Answering nature's call was after searching for a public toilet all over and not finding it. The complainant walks into the place where the petitioner was answering the nature call, a gesture that the complainant narrates is only shock that the petitioner saw the complainant, as is narrated in the statement itself. In the considered view of this court, answering a nature call and coming in front of the complainant, at that point in time, would not become an ingredient of outraging the modesty of a woman, as obtaining a 75(2) of BNS".
During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had gotten off a bus and was looking for a public restroom. Since he was unable to find a restroom, he proceeded towards a railway track to urinate. While urinating, the complainant happened to walk in the area. The petitioner noticed her, following which she saw his private parts and lodged the complaint.
Case Title: S v. N
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15549 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
The Karnataka High Court directed a separated couple to undergo psychological assessment and counselling for “fair parenting”, while refusing the husband's plea to subject their minor twins to a psychological assessment to evaluate the extent of “parental alienation” allegedly caused by their mother.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322]
“Undoubtedly in case there is necessity for such psychological assessment and evaluation, Court is bound to do so. However, in the case on hand this Court does not find any such necessity to order the children to subject themselves for psychological assessment and evaluation that too to know the impact of parental alienation,” Justice Chillakur Sumalatha said while rejecting the father's plea.
The Court observed that in their fight over the guardianship and custody of the children, the parents were subjecting the children to serious hardship.
“The children of 5-6 years generally tend to spend their time playing, engaging themselves with other children, learning and getting themselves involved in various activities of their choice. But this case reveals sad state of affairs where the parents claiming themselves to be the best protectors of children, are subjecting the children to unwarranted hardship,” the Court said.
Case Title: Sheela S v State of Karnataka
Case No: WP No. 12878 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
The Karnataka High Court has held that the death of a son does not by itself obligate the daughter-in-law to maintain her mother-in-law under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, which allows a senior citizen to get a property transfer cancelled if the receiving party fails to provide basic care and physical needs of the senior citizen.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323]
Setting aside the order of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal that granted relief to the mother-in-law, the bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj observed:
"The death of the son cannot, by itself, create a fresh statutory obligation upon the Petitioner under Section 23. The rights and obligations arising under Section 23 must be determined with reference to the transfer and the conditions attached thereto"
Case Title: FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24293 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court has held that a person under investigation has no vested right to choose, nominate, or seek the substitution of an Investigating Officer based on subjective apprehensions of bias.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324]
The Court, accordingly, rejected the prayer seeking substitution of the probing officer and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner for forwarding his representation relating to pending investigation to constitutional authorities, including the Chief Justice of India.
“Unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out before a competent Court, the person under investigation cannot insist that the investigation should be conducted by an officer of his choice or seek the recusal of the Investigating Officer as a matter of right,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.
The Court noted that the petitioner has produced no material which could prima facie justify an inference that the investigation is actuated by mala fides or that the Investigating Officer has disabled himself from conducting a fair investigation.
Case title: SRI R.GOVINDA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA and batch
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2025 and batch
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325
The Karnataka High Court has quashed acquisition of land near Bannerghatta National Park for a housing project, observing that the area forms part of a corridor used by elephants who cannot be displaced from their homes or treated as occupants without any rights.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325]
It further underscored that while land acquisition should be for the greater purpose of public good, however no public purpose can supersede the object of environmental conservation.
A division bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan in its order said:
"It is true that the object of land acquisition should be for the greater purpose of public good. The lands may be acquired for various projects which are covered under the scope of 'public purpose.' However, in our view, no public purpose can supersede the object of environmental and ecological conservation. As important as it is to encourage development and urbanisation, the same must be done while balancing the interests of the environment and its species. The proposed Suryanagar Project aims to give affordable and well-planned housing plots to the allottees and the general public being the residents, but the same is done at the cost of displacing the wildlife and depriving them of their natural habitat. It is a settled and enduring sentiment that “there is no place like home.”
Yet, the actions of the Respondents, as borne out from the record, compel this Court to confront a disquieting question: whether the same fundamental principle of a secure and undisturbed home is to be denied to wildlife. The elephants in question, for whom these corridors constitute not merely a passage but an essential part of their natural habitat and existence, cannot be treated as occupants without rights whose homes may be displaced at will"
Case Title: Smt Sheela S vs State of Karnataka & others,
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.12878 OF 2026
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 326
The Karnataka High Court has held that the expression “love and affection” written in a Gift Deed cannot be treated as a statutory maintenance condition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 326]
Section 23 of the Act allows a transfer of property by a senior citizen— by way of gift or otherwise— to be declared void by a Tribunal if the transfer was made on the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee thereafter refuses or fails to comply with that condition.
“The expression “love and affection” appearing in the Gift Deed cannot, without more, be transformed into a statutory maintenance condition. To do so would amount to rewriting the terms of the transfer and supplying an obligation which the parties themselves did not record,” Justice Suraj Govindraj said.
Case Title: G v. M
Case No: WP No.24556/2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking a direction to expedite divorce proceedings, observing that judicial officers cannot be pressurised with rigid timelines and that 'justice is not merely about speed'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327]
The single judge bench of Dr Justice Chillakur Sumalatha noted that quality and fairness of judicial decisions cannot be compromised in the course of speedy disposal.
“…High Court cannot lay excessive emphasis on numerical disposal and pressurise for speedy adjudication of matters... Justice is not merely about speed. Judgments cannot be obtained by click of button. Reaching the correct and fair conclusion after due consideration of evidence is not an easy task…”
The court further noted that undue pressure on judicial officers can affect the quality of justice rendered. While endeavour must be made to avoid undue delays, it shouldn't affect judicial independence, the court opined.
Case Title: Dr Adnan Saeed v. Smt. Vandana Sharma & Ors.
Case No: CCC No.933/2023 along with WA No.928/2023 & WA No.114/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a government bond requiring a doctor to serve till retirement, especially when no posting orders were provided after completion of a super-specialty course, amounts to an unreasonable condition that cannot be enforced. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328]
The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T noted in the order that the doctor-petitioner, though he completed his M. Ch Surgical Oncology course through in-service quota in 2018, was not granted posting for over 3 years despite reporting for duty soon after the course completion. Pertinently, the door had executed a bond which mandated compulsory government service till retirement with no voluntary retirement eligibility.
“… in the absence of any posting orders being issued to the respondent, the appellants cannot raise these contentions in these proceedings. It is not on account of any fault of the respondent that appropriate posting orders as provided in the Bond and the Government Order were not made available to the respondent. The respondent, a Super Specialty Qualified Doctor cannot be expected to remain idle and not work when no posting orders are provided to him, even in spite of reporting to the Government for duty and seeking the same”.
The court further held that the condition in the bond requiring a doctor to remain indebted to the Government for life, particularly when no posting orders were provided, cannot be countenanced.
Case Title: Ravi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: Criminal Petition No.100680/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329
The Karnataka High Court has recently accepted the unconditional apology tendered by an advocate, who had allegedly threatened a Sessions Judge and attempted to hamper court proceedings. While doing so, the court imposed a symbolic fine of Rs 1,000 and directed the lawyer to plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings as a 'social action'.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329]
The single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar sitting at Dharwad noted in the order as below:
“…Justice has been pictured in as Goddess of Justice with open eyes holding scale in one hand and the Constitution of India on the other hand. The scales connote the weighing and balancing of rights and privileges. The judge and the lawyer should remember, first and foremost, that in weighing and balancing rights and privileges they are building together a monument in the Temple of Justice. At the same time we should follow principles enshrined in the Constitution of India in letter and spirit in our life… This building is never-ending, for the process of justice is never finished…Hence, this case shall remind all of us and make us introspect what we are and what is our contribution to society and to the nation.”
The petitioners-accused had filed a petition under Section 447 BNSS seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.5/2026 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal.
In April, the High Court had dismissed the transfer petition with costs and had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate for his conduct during the Session trial.“…Therefore it is observed that the judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stoneward by browbeating or bullying methodology either it is by litigants or by counsel…”, the court noted as the reason for its previous order initiating contempt, as a measure to deter other legal professionals from repeating the same conduct.
Case title: X v/s State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No.11340/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330
Granting bail to man booked in a rape case, the Karnataka High Court observed that when a man who promises marriage subsequently approaches the woman's family seeking approval and where her mother refuses the proposal then it cannot be said that the man had no intention to fulfill the promise.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty noted that the victim herself, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, confirmed that after the alleged sexual act between them, the petitioner had approached the woman's mother and iterated his willingness to marry her daughter. However, the said prospective alliance was allegedly rejected by the mother of the victim.
“…For the purpose of Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, accused should have sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making promise to marry the said woman without any intention of fulfilling the same…. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner, who allegedly had promised to marry the first informant had approached her mother but the proposal was refused by the mother of the first informant… In the present case, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant”, the court accordingly noted in the order granting bail.
Case Title: X v. Z
Case No: RPFC No.133/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a revision plea filed by a wife seeking maintenance, holding that she failed to establish reasonable cause for leaving the matrimonial home, particularly when she left to care for COVID-affected parents and subsequently refused to return despite her husband's requests.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331]
The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Chilakur Sumalatha noted as below in the order:
“…As per the contents of Ex.R1 - Complaint, petitioner went to her maternal home to take care of her parents and sister as they contacted COVID and her father suffered with heart attack. Thus, it cannot be held that due to the attitude of respondent, petitioner left matrimonial home and went to her maternal home…Also, undisputedly, as per the contents of Ex.R3 statement given by wife to police, her husband approached her parents house asking her to return to matrimonial home”, the court noted at the outset, iterating the findings of the family court.
The court highlighted that the grant of maintenance is not automatic and the wife seeking maintenance should meet certain specific criteria for the same.
“….A wife is entitled to get an order of maintenance against her husband only if she meets required criteria prominent of which are:
(i) That her husband neglected or refused to maintain her;(ii) That she is unable to maintain herself; and(iii) That her husband has got sufficient means to maintain her…”, the court pointed out.
Case: SRI. SATHISH N. VAIDYA & OTHERS vs MR. M.P. NORONHA
WRIT PETITION NO.23294/2022 (GM-CPC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332
The Karnataka High Court has upheld 3-month civil imprisonment against the editor, managing director and director of Karavali Ale newspaper for violating a temporary injunction order, holding that the trial court could not have have directed them to tender an apology instead of imposing a punishment under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.
The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the appellate court's order. The appellate court had found error in the trial court's order, which directed the petitioners to tender an apology instead of imposing the punishments provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC for disobedience or breach of injunction—namely, attachment of property or detention in civil prison for up to three months.
“The legal maxim Nulla poena sine lege means no punishment without law, the Court is duty bound to award a punishment within the framework of law and cannot invent new penalties,” Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed.
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, wherein the Apex Court had said, “It is well settled that when a statute or statutory rules prescribed a penalty for any act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the statute or statutory rules can be imposed. It is well settled that when statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done only in that manner.”