- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 105769 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SMT. AMULYA W/O. ANAND YATTINAMANI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. 130, KOTTILINGESHWAR NAGAR, BEHIND KSRTC WORK SHOP, HUBBALLI-580024. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH S.BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: DR. ANAND S/O. PRADEEP YATTINAMANI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. CTS NO. 2808/B, GURUWAR PETH, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.BHAGYASHREE N.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2025 PASSED ON THE FILES HON’BLE I ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, BEARING M.C.NO.59/2025 ON I.A.NO.09/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court rejecting the petitioner's application for production of three documents. 2. Document No.1 is said to be an undertaking given by respondent - husband and his brother before the police. The undertaking is said to have been given before the police. Such document is inadmissible in evidence and the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application for production of said document. 3. The second document is said to be the copy of the complaint filed by petitioner - wife. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no such complaint was ever registered and filed before the police. 5. Whether the complaint was filed or registered is a matter of evidence. The petitioner - wife should be permitted to produce the copy of the complaint. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025 6. The third document is relating to the attendance register maintained by the police which allegedly recorded the attendance of the petitioner - wife in the police station for certain days. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent - husband would submit that the respondent - husband does not seriously dispute the fact that the petitioner – wife might have visited the police station on few days as contended by the petitioner. If that is the statement, then there is no need to secure the attendance register from the police station. 8. It is stated that the police have not registered the complaint said to have been filed by the petitioner - wife. If it is not registered, there is no point in summoning the Police Department to produce the complaint copy which is said to have been filed by the petitioner. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on application by the petitioner, an endorsement is given by the police, the petitioner is permitted to produce the copy of the said endorsement. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order is quashed in part. 10. With these observations the petition is disposed of. 11. Both parties shall cooperate for early disposal. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32