Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 05 June To June 11

NOMINAL INDEXNasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204Pramod R S And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205M S Ravi Dixit And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 206B S Yeddyurappa And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 207Dr. Chandrashekar T B And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 208Pavankumar A N & ANR And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 209Dr M David And Department of High Education & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 210ABC v. XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 211Abdul Rehman And The Deputy Commissioner & others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 212PG Setty Construction Technology Pvt Ltd And The Managing Director, Karnataka State Police Housing And Infrastructure Development Corporation & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 213M/s. GE T & D India Ltd. Versus State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 214Judgments/OrdersProceedings For Guardianship, Custody Of Minor Lie Only Before Family Court: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Nasim Banu & ANR And Shabas Khan & OthersCase No: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.273 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 202The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that a proceeding in relation to the guardianship of a person or the custody of or access to any minor has to be filed before Family court and it cannot be filed before a district court or any subordinate civil court.A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, “Section 8 of the Family Courts Act is very clear with regard to exclusion of jurisdiction and pending proceedings where a Family Court has been established for any area. The very proviso of Section 8(a) is very clear that no district court or any subordinate civil court referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 7 shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceeding of the nature referred to in the explanation to that sub-section.”Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Hear Individual Suits By Catholics To Offer Prayers In Their Own Language At Church: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Diocese of Chikkamagaluru And Lancy J Narona & OthersCase No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL NO.98 OF 2021Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 203The Karnataka High Court has upheld an Appellate court order holding that civil courts have jurisdiction to hear a suit filed in individual capacity by few Catholics, seeking a direction to the Religious head of the church to allow them to offer prayers/mass prayers in Konkani Language.A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh dismissed the second appeal preferred by Diocese of Chikkamagaluru and said, “Admittedly, the suit is filed for the relief of worshipping in the church in a particular language. It is the contention that there are 42 Parishes of Chikkamagaluru and out of which Parishes of different places are also allowed to do the prayer in different languages and the same is disputed by the appellant herein. When such being the case, the same has to be decided only in full fledged trial and not at the initial stage of considering the averments made in the plaint.”POSH Act | Karnataka High Court Disposes PIL For Establishment Of Internal Complaints Committee In All Educational Institutions Case Title: Kreetams Pro Bono And Centre For Legal Research And Ministry of Secondary and Primary Education & ANRCase No: WP 5724/2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 204The Karnataka High Court on Monday disposed of a PIL seeking directions to the State's Department of Primary and Secondary Education to issue circulars mandating all educations institutes to establish an internal complaint committee (ICC) in the light of Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act.A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal disposed of the petition filed by Kreetams Pro Bono and Centre for Legal Research. In doing so, it relied on Aureliano Fernandes vs State Of Goa whereby the Supreme Court issued a slew of directions to fulfil the promise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country. Further it directed the Union of India, State Governments and Union Territories to file compliance reports within 8 weeks.Wife's Complaint U/S 498A IPC Can't Be Quashed Merely Because It's Filed After Husband Demands Divorce: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Pramod R S And State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1511 OF 2023Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 205The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a husband seeking to quash the complaint registered by his wife under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, after he sent her a legal notice seeking amicable settlement for dissolution of marriage.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, “There cannot be a declaration of law as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once the...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 05 June To June 11

Mustafa Plumber

Tags