What did the High Court hold?

The High Court found no error in the Family Court's decision to reject the amendment. The court reasoned that the interim custody could be decided without the new facts proposed in the amendment.

The petitioner sought to amend his application for child custody, claiming his previous lawyer failed to include material facts. The amendment was substantial, nearly doubling the size of the original application.

What were the issues?

Whether the amendment sought to the child custody application was necessary for deciding the interim custody, and if the rejection of the amendment was justified.

Mr Harender Keerthi vs Mrs Priya | Karnataka High Court 2012

Before: AND

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.37489 OF 2012 (GM-FC) BETWEEN : MR HARENDER KEERTHI S/O SATHYARANARAYANA KEERTHI AGED 38 YEAS R/AT NO. 216, 2ND CROSS COFFEE BOARD LAYOT HEBBAL, KEMPAPURA BANGALORE-560024 ... PETITIONER (By Sri: MANJUNATH B R & MARUTHI L, ADVS., ) AND MRS PRIYA W/O HARENDRER KEERTHI AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO. 127, 4TH MAIN INCOME TAX LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040 ... RESPONDENT ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS & SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.31.8.12 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O 6 RULE 17 OF CPC., PASSED BY THE II ADDL. PRL. FAMILY JUDGE AT BANGALORE VIDE ANN-A & ALLOW THE SAME.

- 2 - THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- O R D E R The petitioner’s application for amendment of the petition application seeking custody of the child is rejected by the impugned order. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order. The petitioner is a dentist by profession. According to him, his earlier Advocate did not plead material facts in the application filed on his behalf seeking custody of the child and therefore he has sought for amendment of the said application. The amendment runs to about four pages and the amendment sought for is double than the main application itself. Since the Trial Court has found that the application seeking interim

- 3 - custody of the child can be decided without bringing on record the new facts, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, writ petition fails and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-

MR HARENDER KEERTHI vs. MRS PRIYA

What did the High Court hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments