- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17703 WP No. 7181 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7181 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: PAVAN PADEKAL S/O ISWARA BHAT P AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT "KSHITHIJA" 4-44/46 PRASHANTH BAGH ALAPE PADIL MANAGOLRE- 575 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: DR.NIVEDITHA T.G. D/O LATE T.G BHAT AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.3-238-2 "CHIRANTHANA" SANTHOSH NAGARA KUTHAR PADAV, MUNNAR VILLAGE MANGALORE TALUK- 575 017. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI. K. CHANDRANATH ARIGA FOR C/R IN C.P NO.3788/2025 AND 3789/2025 AND 3790/2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD FEBRUARY 15, 2025 (ANNX-A) PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL FAMILY COURT, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE IN G AND WC NO.2/2022 ON INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 46 TO 48 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NOS. 46 TO 48 (ANNEXURE B, C AND D) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17703 WP No. 7181 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the orders passed on I.A.Nos.46 to 48 dated 15.02.2025 in G&WC.No.2/2022 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, the father- petitioner is before this Court. The G&WC.No.2/2022 is filed seeking custody of the minor daughters. 2. When the matter was posted for final arguments, the petitioner has filed I.A.Nos.46 to 48 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, to recall the witness/ petitioner for leading further evidence. In the applications, it is stated that the wife-respondent was trying to prolong with the process and during the pendency of the case, it is found that the wife and her maternal uncle have jointly purchased the properties and the same has been suppressed before the Court of law. The documents pertaining to the said properties purchased by his wife and maternal uncle are placed on record. It is further stated that the availability of a parent is vital for any determination of custody, particularly in the light of the fact that it is admitted that there is no concern shown by the wife - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17703 WP No. 7181 of 2025 with regard to the welfare of the children. Hence, the petitioner's evidence may be recalled for the limited purpose and for production of revenue records which is under process of obtaining. The said applications came to be dismissed by the Family Court by order impugned. 3. The Family Court after considering the facts of the case, observes that prima facie there is some substance in the arguments of the respondent. Even if I.A.Nos.46 to 48 are allowed and CDR is secured, it contains the date, time and duration of the call and nothing else. From the said document, it is not possible to prove that the respondent has attempted to influence and tried to win over the witness. The applications are apparently abuse of process of law. The doctors and hospital authorities referred in the applications with whom the respondent alleged to have made phone contacts to win over them are not examined as witnesses in the present case. In addition, the respondent submitted that the relief sought by the petitioner in the application violates her fundamental right and right to privacy as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court finds that the petitioner deliberately protracting the proceedings by filing repeated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17703 WP No. 7181 of 2025 interlocutory applications. Hence, the applications are dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that having regard to the occupation of the mother, her availability to take care of the children places a prominent role and she is not having enough time to spend with the children. All these factors are necessary to determine the custody of the children and the Court without considering these facts has dismissed the applications. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent submits that petitioner is trying to delay the proceedings and is coming with all these kind of applications and is not proceeding with the main case. It is submitted that today the matter is listed for arguments before the Family Court. It is submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner-father. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel for respondent and perused the materials on record. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17703 WP No. 7181 of 2025 7. Admittedly, the matter is posted for arguments and already for ten days, the matter was argued and at that time, these applications came to be filed and on perusal of these applications, the purpose for which the petitioner wants to recall and to produce the records has no relevancy to determine the issue between the parties. Even if the wife is indulged in her work, it will have no impact on the custody of the child, as such, the Family Court has rightly dismissed the applications. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to proceed with the case and the Family Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45