SRI M B RAMACHANDRA vs SMT. HEMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 38450 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.B.RAMACHANDRA,
S/O LATE SRI. M. BALANAIK,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.26/6,
"SNEHAPALLAVI" APARTMENTS,
7TH MAIN, NHBCS LAYOUT,
CAUVERY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. AJIT KALYAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. HEMA,
W/O SRI. M.B.RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.306,
10TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
1ST STAGE, MANJUNATHANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 010.

2. SRI. ACHINTHYA HEMACHANDRA,
S/O SRI. M.B.RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.306,
10TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
1ST STAGE, MANJUNATHA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 010.












Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025


3. MS. ADITHI HEMACHANDRA,
D/O SRI. M.B.RAMACHANDRA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.306,
10TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK,
1ST STAGE, MANJUNATHANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.V.RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND SETTING
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 IN CRL MISC
209/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY
COURT, BENGALURU, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE - A AND
ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 01.12.2025 passed in IA
No. 3 in Crl.Misc.No. 209/2020 by the Principal Judge, Family
Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/husband is before this Court.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred
to as husband and wife.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025


3. An application is filed under Section 19(5) and
Section 13 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, read with
Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, to recall the order dated
18.02.2021 and, consequently, pass an award under Section 21
of the Legal Services Authorities Act in terms of the joint memo
filed by both parties dated 18.02.2021, or, in the alternative, to
nullify the joint memo, permit the husband to contest the
present case on merits, and direct the petitioners to repay the
entire amount of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest from the date
of payment till date and return all jewelry as per the annexure
of the joint memo, which is dismissed by the Court by the
impugned order. The Court decided on two aspects, one on
limitation and the other on the merits of the matter. When it
comes to the limitation aspect, the Court observed that since
the Limitation Act does not prescribe any particular period of
limitation for filing an application of the present nature, the
residuary article is applicable, and therefore the application has
to be filed within 3 years from 18.02.2021. Further, the Family
Court concluded that this application was filed beyond 3 years
and is barred by limitation. The Family Court further observed

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025


that, even for the sake of argument, if the application is
considered on merits, the relief sought cannot be granted for
the following reasons. The first relief sought is to recall the
order dated 18.02.2021 and pass an award in terms of the joint
memo filed by the parties dated 18.02.2021. The orders dated
18.02.2021 sought to be recalled. A plain reading of the order
makes it clear that it was at the request of the parties that the
matter was referred to Lok Adalat to report a final settlement.
The reason is not far to see, because, as already noted, the
joint memo filed was not a completed settlement, and various
acts had to be done by the parties to reach the final settlement,
including the registration of the gift deed, which, as already
noted, is not completed till today. Even if the said order is
recalled, no purpose would be served, because at this stage the
petitioners are not accepting the terms of settlement as stated
in the joint memo. Merely signing the joint memo will not
complete the legal formalities required for recording the
settlement, and it is only if the parties accept the settlement
before the court, after the terms thereof are explained to the
parties, that the case can be disposed of in terms of the joint

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025


memo. As on 18.02.2021, when the joint memo was filed,
various acts were required to be done to complete the
settlement process, and even as on date, one act required to
complete the settlement process, i. e., registration of the gift
deed, is not yet concluded, and, more importantly, the
petitioners are not willing to accept the settlement stated in the
joint memo as on today. Such being the case, even for the sake
of argument, if the order dated 18.02.2021 referring the matter
to the Lok Adalat is recalled, it will not serve any purpose,
because the court cannot pass an award on the basis of the
joint memo, as the petitioners are not accepting the said
settlement as on date, and accordingly, the Family Court had
dismissed the application.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that, by virtue of the settlement arrived at between the parties,
the entire amount of Rs.20,00,000/- has been paid along with
the jewelry. The court ought to have recorded the settlement.
The court referred the matter to the Lok Adalath, and the
respondents herein failed to appear before the court, causing
considerable prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the order

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025


passed, referring the matter to the Lok Adalath, has to be
recalled, and the settlement shall be recorded based on the
joint memo filed before the court. It is submitted that the
finding with regard to limitation and other aspects is contrary to
law. It is submitted that the impugned order needs to be set
aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
submits that the respondents are not ready to compromise.
According to him, the petitioner has changed the terms of the
joint memo, which is unacceptable to them. It is submitted that
the Family Court has passed a reasoned order and that no
interference is called for.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record.
7. The petitioner seeks to recall an order under which
the Court referred the matter to Lok Adalat to be held on
27.07.2021. According to the petitioner, they have filed a joint
memo. The Court ought to have recorded the settlement
instead of relegating the parties to Lok Adalat. After filing the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025


joint memo and paying the entire amount, the respondents
were not referred to Lok Adalat; therefore, no settlement could
be reached. Even if the petitioner's submissions are taken at
face value, setting aside this order raises questions about the
consequences and whether, by recalling the order, the court
can record a settlement. Now, the respondents are not ready
for compromise. The Court has rightly observed that when the
respondents are not ready, the question of recording the
compromise on the joint memo would not arise, and a
compromise award cannot be passed. The exercise undertaken
and the IA filed cannot be considered, and the relief sought by
the petitioner cannot be granted. The Family Court had rightly
dismissed the application. Even if the petitioner pays the
amounts, the Criminal Miscellaneous petition remains pending.
If the petitioner has any other remedy, he may approach the
court. However, the mere payment of money cannot be a
ground for the court to record a compromise. In that view of
the matter, this Court do not find any reason to interfere.
Hence, this Court is passing the following:

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59971
WP No. 38450 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010826432025


ORDER
dismissed
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is .

ii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.


SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE



BH
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24
*AK