SRI. K.PRADEEP SHENOY v. SMT. VINEETHA PAI K
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they will work out the possibility of settlement before the Family Court. In that view of the matter nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. Hence, this Court is passing…
Judgment
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 28758 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. K.PRADEEP SHENOY S/O K.RATHNAKAR SHENOY AGE ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A RATHNADEEP, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HAYAGREEVA NAGAR, INDRALI MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT- 576 102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARDHAN SHENOY K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.PRITHVEESH M.K., ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. VINEETHA PAI K., W/O K.PRADEEP SHENOY - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42943 WP No. 28758 of 2025 HC-KAR D/O K.VIVEKANANDA PAI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS PRESENTLYL AT L6-17-696 MANNAGUDDA GANDHINAGAR MANGALORE -575 003 (BY SRI.K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN G AND WC NO. 18/2024 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 PASSED BY THE PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT UDUPI ON IA NO. XII IN G AND WC NO. 18/2024 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42943 WP No. 28758 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.12 in G & WC.No.18/2024 dated 17.09.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi whereby the Family Court had granted the interim custody of the child to the mother from 20.09.2025 to 29.09.2025.
When this matter came up before this Court, this Court had not interfered with the order impugned and also interacted with the parties and suggested that the matter may be amicably settled and they can settle all the disputes that are pending.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned is already worked out and nothing remains to be considered in this writ petition.
Operative part
As it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they will work out the possibility of settlement before the Family Court. In that view of the matter nothing remains to be adjudicated in this writ petition. Hence, this Court is passing the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42943 WP No. 28758 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. ii. All I.As., in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.