LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231NOMINAL INDEXAnanda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka Information Commission & Sri A. Suresh Chandra Babu, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225Radha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228V v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231Judgments/ OrdersLaw University Cannot Force Repeater Students To Appear For New Syllabus Not Taught To Them: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Ananda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & OthersCase No.: W.P. No. 17879 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a circular issued by the state law university which required the repeater students to appear for the newly introduced subjects instead of the earlier subjects they had been taught [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220].The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi struck down the circular issued by Karnataka State Law University [Respondent No.1], mandating the repeating students to appear for new subjects such as 'Labour and Industrial Law-I' and 'Labour and Industrial Law-II' instead of 'Labour Law-I' and 'Labour Law-II'.Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash IT Act Case Against Rape Accused's Wife Over Alleged Circulation Of Survivor's Explicit VideoCase Title: Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & AnotherCase No.: Criminal Petition No. 2163 of 2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash FIR against a wife accused of transmitting obscene videos of her husband allegedly sexually assaulting an employee at his establishment, holding that the act of transmission itself constitutes an offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221]It had been alleged that during the course of her employment, accused No. 1, the husband of the petitioner, committed acts of sexual assault upon the complainant—not once, but twice—by employing deceit, coercion, and manipulation.Meanwhile, the allegation against the petitioner/accused no.2 was that, sexually explicit material or the activities between the husband and the complainant were shot on a mobile phone and circulated by the petitioner to the complainant's husband and her relatives.The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the wife [accused no.2] will be liable to face trial under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act for allegedly sharing the survivor's explicit video.Financially Independent Wife Earning More Than Husband Can't Claim Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Woman: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & OthersCase No.: Writ Petition No. 2327 of 2026 (GM-FC)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222The Karnataka High Court, while setting aside a trial court's direction to a husband to pay Rs 20,000 interim maintenance to his wife, has held that a wife who earns considerably more than her husband cannot claim maintenance from him, especially when she has no other obligations or liabilities to discharge. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222]The single judge bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha noted in its order as follows:“…When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final”.Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty Under RTI Act, Says Successor Officer Can't Blame Predecessor For Pending MattersCase Title: Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka Information Commission & Sri A. Suresh Chandra BabuCase No.: Writ Petition No. 15040 of 2026 (GM-RES)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea by the Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority...

LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: June 29 - July 05, 2026

Sebin James

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sebin James

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers