Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Geetha K B Shetty celebrates her 60th birthday today.
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Geetha KB Shetty: Born in Shivamogga on 22.04.1966. Graduated in Bachelors of Arts during 1986 from Sahyadri College, Shivamogga from Mysore University, secured 8th Rank, 2-Gold Medals and cash prizes in Samskruta. Post-graduate in Economics from Manasa Gangothri-Mysuru during 1988. Studied LLB at National Law College from Mysuru University during 1991, secured 1st Rank, 2-Gold Medals and cash prizes. Post-graduate in Samskruta through correspondence course from Manasa Gangothri-Mysuru during 1993. Enrolled as an Advocate in Karnataka State Bar Council, Bengaluru on 09.07.1991. Joined the chambers of Sri H.N. Srinivasa Rao, a Senior Advocate in Shivamogga Bar in July, 1991 and practiced as an Advocate in civil side till joined the services in judiciary. On 11.02.1997, appointed as Civil Judge, on 05.08.2009 promoted as Fast Track Judge, on 01.06.2013 promoted as District Judge. Served as Principal District & Sessions Judge in Davanagere, Tumakuru, Chitradurga and Bengaluru Rural District.
Appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka on 30.09.2025.
Important Judgements delivered by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Geetha K B Shetty.
Kartha of a Hindu Joint Family possesses the legal authority to alienate ancestral property without the consent of other coparceners, provided the alienation is for ‘legal necessity’ or for the ‘benefit of the estate’—such as meeting the expenses for a daughter’s marriage or family maintenance. Once such necessity is proved, the sale is binding on all members of the joint family. Karnataka High Court.
Hindu Succession Act. A daughter’s right to a share in ancestral coparcenary property is a birthright that remains unaffected by revenue-based mutation entries and sale based on such entries. Any denial of a coparcenary share based on the presence or absence of revenue entries is legally unsustainable, as title must be adjudicated based on the source of acquisition and the nature of the property rather than administrative record-keeping. Karnataka High Court.
POCSO Act and Section 376 of the IPC. Enemity between the families of the accused and the victim coupled with negative DNA report are factors to be taken note of. Where the victim’s testimony is inconsistent, the medical evidence is inconclusive, and there is an unexplained, inordinate delay in filing the FIR, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Karnataka High Court.
Daksha Legal 