- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30253 WP No. 23178 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION No. 23178 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. GANGADHAR CHANDRASHEKAR UPPIN S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR UPPIN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT No.3/6, SURAJ KRUPA APARTMENT 35, 'A' CROSS, 1ST 15TH MAIN 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JAGADEESH D C, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. M. C. SHYLAJA W/O GANGADHAR C. UPPIN D/O. CHANNABASAVAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT No.57, 'SHIVAGANGA' 4TH CROSS, MEENAKSHI LAYOUT KODIPALYA, KENGERI BENGALURU -560 060. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.4.2024 ON I.A.No.5 IN M.C. No.527/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30253 WP No. 23178 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.5 in MC No. 527 of 2021 dated 27.04.2024 whereby the application was dismissed, the husband is before this court. 2. The husband has filed MC seeking divorce. In that, the wife has filed an IA seeking interim maintenance. When the matter was coming for the evidence of the husband at that point of time, two applications were filed. One application i.e. IA No.5 praying to summon the drawing officer of MPS Ltd and to furnish exact salary drawn by respondent from her employment. The other IA is under Section 151 of the CPC seeking direction to produce certain documents. The Court had disposed IA No.6 as already the wife has produced majority of the documents and nothing survives for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not on IA No.6, but he is aggrieved with the order passed in IA No.5 where the court has refused to summon the Drawing Officer. 3. This court has perused the order passed by the court. While dismissing the application, the Court has observed that summoning of Drawing Officer of the Company in which the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30253 WP No. 23178 of 2025 wife is working is not relevant as she has already produced the salary slip of December, 2023. As such there is no necessity of summoning the Drawing Officer. Only because the wife has joined service in 1994 and her present salary is shown as Rs.38,000/- it cannot be assumed that correct salary of the wife has been suppressed by her. Since the correct salary certificate is already before the Court and later if it is found that the same is false, necessary action can be taken as per law and hence the Court felt that there are no grounds to summon the Drawing Officer where the wife is working. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the husband submits that this is the second marriage to both the wife and the husband. Through the first marriage the wife has received alimony of Rs.4,00,000/- and it was suppressed and she is having landed properties, that aspect was also suppressed by the wife. According to the learned counsel, a person who is working in a multinational company from the year 1994, in 2025 she cannot say that her salary is Rs.38,000/-. It is submitted that earlier it is stated that her salary is Rs.29,000/-. Now as per the salary slip, it is Rs.38,000/-, which shows that there is suppression and misrepresentation of facts on the part - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30253 WP No. 23178 of 2025 of the wife. Further, she is having landed properties and also she lives in a palatial building. All these aspects are necessary and if the court summons the Drawing Officer, all the issues will come into light. It is submitted that the Court ought not to have dismissed this application. 5. Having heard the learned counsel of the petitioner perused the material on record. 6. Admittedly, in this case, the wife has filed the income tax returns. The wife has filed the salary slip. It is the assumption of the petitioner that because she is working in an MNC from the year 1994, her salary cannot be Rs.38,000/- and as such, the Drawing Officer has to be summoned. The Court by giving cogent and valid reasons had dismissed the petition and it is rightly held that when those documents are before the Court, it is not necessary to summon the Drawing Officer. Further, if at any point of time, any of the documents that are placed are not genuine documents, the Court would take appropriate steps as per law. In the considered opinion of this court, the order that is passed is a well considered one and no interference is called for. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30253 WP No. 23178 of 2025 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. All I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE DKB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31