Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 180Nominal IndexSmt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173X v. Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 174Bharath Earth Movers Employees...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
Nominal Index
Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
X v. Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 174
Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
S v. R & Anr..,2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 176
Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
Smt. Vanitha S. v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority for IMA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
Channakeshava D.R v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
Gregory F. Peres v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)180
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WPHC No. 35 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court held last week [April 29] that a preventive detention order passed against a 19-year-old under the Karnataka Goonda Act, 1985 would stand vitiated since most of the offences forming the foundation of the said order were committed by the detenu when he was a juvenile.
The division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the detenue's mother and set aside the detention order issued in December 2025 by the State's home department.
The court also clarified that no 'subjective satisfaction' could have been derived from the offences committed as a Juvenile so as to pass a detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985.
Case Title: Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer
Case No: Writ Petition No. 10453 of 2026 (GM-PASS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka High Court has refused to set aside a 'Leave India' notice issued against a French national for running a restaurant in Gokarna on a tourist visa for the past 15 years, holding that foreign nationals have no fundamental right to reside or carry on their business in India.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has directed Christophe Stephane Monxion, a French national who entered India on a tourist visa, to leave the country within seven days in accordance with the 'Leave India' notice issued through WhatsApp by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).
“…The protection under Article 21 extends to all “persons,” including foreign nationals; however, the said protection is confined to ensuring that no person is deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. The said guarantee cannot be expanded to confer a right to reside, settle, or carry on business within the territory of India. Such rights are traceable to Article 19(1)(e) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which are expressly confined to citizens of India”, the court accordingly held in the order dated 22nd April.
Case Title: The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others
Case No: MFA No. 201877 of 2025 (MV-D)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation's plea (KKRTC) challenging compensation of Rs 1.1 Crore in a motor accident claim, noting that the corporation suppressed the removal of the driver in disciplinary proceedings over the incident and had yet blamed the deceased for negligence.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed that the Corporation cannot take the contradictory stand that the negligence was entirely on the part of the deceased victim when it had already expelled or punished its employees in departmental proceedings for their negligence. It thus imposed cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
"The action initiated by the Road Transport Corporation, namely Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, against its driver and conductor arises out of the very same accident in which the death of the deceased occurred. The Corporation, having conducted disciplinary proceedings and having recorded a finding of culpability against its employees, culminating in orders of removal from service or withholding of increment, cannot now be permitted to contend that the deceased himself was negligent and that such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of his death”, the court noted.
Case Title: X v. Y & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 5971/2026 c/w Writ Petition No. 4443/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
In a matter relating to the custody of a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court quashed a Family Court's ex parte interim injunction order which completely barred the mother from having access to the daughter till the completion of the child's year-end exams in June.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao allowed the writ petitions filed by the mother and vacated the interim stay granted in favour of the child's paternal grandmother and paternal aunt on April 24.
The court said that the mother -a natural guardian of the teenage daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - cannot be fully restricted from meeting her child, in the absence of 'compelling justifications', even if the interim order is for a limited time period.
“…Though the impugned order[Family Court's] does not expressly displace such status [mother as a natural guardian], its effect is to substantially curtail the petitioner's ability to exercise the incidents of natural guardianship. By continuing an order of injunction …the Family Court has, in substance, diluted the statutory recognition accorded under Section 6….at the interlocutory stage. In a situation where the dispute is not between two natural guardians, any order resulting in complete exclusion of the mother must be supported by compelling circumstances demonstrable from the record”, the court said.
Case Title: Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 19885 of 2025 (clubbed with WP Nos. 15749 & Other Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has held that employees belonging to exempted establishments could still claim higher pensions post-2014 under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 [Scheme, 1995], through a joint option, provided that they have been contributing on actual wages to the provident fund, even when the contribution is paid on capped wages to the pension scheme.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while quashing multiple EPFO rejection orders, held that members of the Provident Fund Trusts of the exempted establishments, who have contributed to the Provident Fund on actual wages (not on capped wages), but contributed to the Pension Fund only on the capped pensionable wages (not on actual wages), can rightly claim a higher pension.
This is permissible under Paragraph 11(4) [Determination of Pensionable Salaries] of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, by exercising a joint option for a higher pension along with the employer, even after the supposed cut-off date in September 2014 to opt for higher pension options, the court added.
Case Title: S v. R & Anr.
Case No: MFA No. 200082 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim by a person that their spouse has accused them of suffering from a grave illness like HIV/AIDS won't amount to mental cruelty in order to seek divorce, unless corroborated with sufficient evidence.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr Justice Chillakure Sumalatha, setting aside the decree for divorce, opined that the Family Court erred in granting the divorce decree by blindly accepting the husband's uncorroborated testimony that his wife had accused him of suffering from the ailment of HIV/ AIDS.
"The case of the husband is that the wife and her parents subjected him to ill-treatment, used abusive and vulgar language, and further imputed that he was suffering from HIV/AIDS. These allegations, if established, would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of mental cruelty as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly having regard to the serious and stigmatic nature of such imputations. However, the critical question is not the nature of the allegation but whether such allegation has been proved in accordance with law. In support of his case, the husband has examined himself as PW.1. No documentary evidence has been produced. No independent witness has been examined. There is no contemporaneous material, such as complaints, correspondence, or testimony of persons who may have witnessed the alleged conduct, to lend assurance to the version of the husband. Thus, the finding of cruelty rests solely on the uncorroborated and interested testimony of the husband".
Case Title: Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6850/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 7) granted bail to one of the accused in alleged mob-lynching of a man from Kerala who purportedly chanted pro-Pakistan slogans at a cricket stadium in Mangalore's Kudupu Village last year.
The single judge bench of V Srishananda passed the order granting bail to the third accused- Manjunatha Mallikarjuna.
The court directed the accused to be released from the custody upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 1 Lakh along with two sureties to the like sum. Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam appeared for the petitioner-accused.
Case Title: Smt. Vanitha S. v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority for IMA
Case No: Writ Petition No. 5049 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The High Court has held that an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of plaint at the threshold claiming no cause of action, would not be maintainable in summary proceedings under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE) Act.
“The KPIDFE Act provides a self-contained mechanism, beginning from ad-interim attachment under Section 3 of the KPIDFE Act, confirmation through Special Court under Section 12 of the KPIDFE Act, adjudication of claims and objections, final orders regarding attachment. The entire scheme is time-bound and recovery-oriented, unlike ordinary civil litigation…The KPIDFE Act is designed to secure immediate protective measures in respect of the properties of defaulting financial establishments so as to safeguard the interests of depositors. If applications invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC are entertained at the threshold of such proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be to derail and delay the process of attachment and preservation of assets, introduce preliminary adjudicatory stages not contemplated by the statute and frustrate the legislative mandate of expeditious and timebound adjudication”, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said.
Case Title: Channakeshava D.R v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 1901/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that 'serious and drastic measures' such as freezing a bank account in entirety cannot be resorted to in 'a casual and mechanical' manner since it paralyses the financial autonomy of a person.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while partly allowing a writ petition filed by a practising advocate whose Karnataka Bank Account was frozen, based on a complaint registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, noted as below:
“..The primary object of directing debit freeze is to secure the alleged 'proceeds of crime' or to preserve the subject matter of investigation in relation to a cognizable offence. Therefore, such power must necessarily be exercised only when there exists a live and proximate nexus between the funds in the account and the alleged criminal activity, ordinarily backed by the registration of a First Information Report and supported by some tangible material indicating involvement in a cognizable offence”.
The court added that complete defreezing without the aforesaid valid grounds 'trenches upon the fundamental right to carry on profession and to deal with one's property'.
Renewal Of Arms Licence Can't Be Denied For Not Owning Agricultural Land: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Gregory F. Peres v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 11588 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that firearm license renewal applications cannot be rejected for the reason that the applicant does not have his own agricultural land.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum clarified that the licensing authority, under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959, cannot insist on 'extraneous reasons' such as lack of agricultural land for not renewing a firearm. The court, hence, set aside the order passed by the Police Commissioner declining to renew a 12-bore SBBL weapon license of a 60-year-old resident in Mangalore who has held a valid license for the past 30 years.
“...The licensing authority has thus imported a condition which is alien to the scheme of the Act and Rules. The requirement of ownership of agricultural land is neither a statutory precondition nor a permissible consideration. When the statute expressly mandates that lack of property shall not be a ground for refusal, the authority cannot indirectly achieve what is directly prohibited”, the court noted in the order dated April 23.