ORDER :

1. The petitioner instituted a writ petition1 under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to challenge a judgment dated 31 July 2018 delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in the exercise of the criminal revisional jurisdiction. The relief which was sought in the writ petition was that the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court dated 31 July 2018 in Criminal Revision Petition 282 of 2018 “may be declared void/disabled/ recalled”. For convenience of reference, the prayers in the writ petition are extracted below:

“1. The Writ may be permitted.”

2. Judgment dt 31.7.2018 passed in Crl RP 282/2018 may be declared void/disabled/recalled to protect rights and secure probity in public life.

3. De novo/Fresh – Free hearing may be recommended before a higher/full Bench.”

1. Writ Petition 44237 of 2018

2. The writ petition before the High Court has been transferred to this Court on 13 December 2019 under Article 139A of the Constitution in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No 342 of 2019. The order of transfer reads thus:

“Having heard the petitioner-in-person and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through this transfer petition filed under Article 139A of the Constitution of India and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit and proper to transfer W.P. No. 44237/2018 titled as “Neelam Manmohan Attavar Vs. Manmohan Attavar (D) through LRs” from the High Court of Karnataka to this Court.

We order accordingly.

The Registry is directed to immediately transmit a copy of this order to the High Court forthwith.”

3. The proceedings which have culminated in the institution of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court need to be summarized briefly at this stage. The petitioner instituted proceedings2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 20053. On 30 July 2015, the petition was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-II, Bengaluru. On 5 November 2015, in an appeal4 arising out of the dismissal of the proceedings, the interim relief seeking residence and expenses was initially refused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. Subsequently, on 19 September 2016 in a petition5 under Article 226 filed by the petitioner, the Single Judge recognised a right of residence to the petitioner in a house situated at Bengaluru and, on 24 October 2016, directed the withdrawal of the appeal to the High Court. These orders of the High Court became the subject matter of 2 Criminal Misc Petition No 179 of 2013 renumbered as Criminal Misc Petition No 139 of 2015 3 “Act” 4 Criminal Appeal No 1070 of 2015 5 Writ Petition No 49153 of 2016 proceedings before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos 2500 and 2502 of 2017. On 14 July 2017, this Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court in regard to residence and for the withdrawal of the appeal to itself. On 17 August 2017, this Court also dismissed a petition seeking a review of its judgment dated 14 July 2017. As a consequence of the judgment rendered by this Court, the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge was heard on merits and was eventually dismissed by an order dated 17 February 2018. The petitioner carried the matter in revision6 which was dismissed by the High Court on 31 July 2018. Challenging the order of the High Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition has been transferred to this Court under Article 139A by an order of this Court dated 13 December 2019.

4. The petitioner who has appeared in person has submitted that the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable on the ground that the order dated 31 July 2018 of the High Court is void ab initio. Elaborating her submissions, the petitioner has urged that the order has not been written by the Judge of the High Court. Moreover, the petitioner submits that the High Court, while disp