- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46465 WP No. 31293 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 31293 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. YOGITHA S W/O. ANANTHA KUMAR K G, D/O. SHIVAJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.A-147, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA EXTENSION, 6TH CROSS, SHIVAMOGGA-577202. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANCHAN JAI NANDAN, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI ANANTHA KUMAR K G S/O. LATE BABU RAO KHOTAKAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.1322, SRI. RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA, GROUND FLOOR, 1ST CROSS, NANJAMMA LAYOUT, MANORAYANAPALYA, R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SACHIN KUMAR B. M., ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (I) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12/09/2025 IN M.C.NO.6/2022 PASSED BY Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46465 WP No. 31293 of 2025 COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, SHIVAMOGGA REJECTING I.A DATED 08/09/2025 FILED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 14 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY PERMIT PETITIONER TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AND LEAD HER FURTHER EVIDENCE THEREIN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A. dated 08.09.2025 in M.C.No.6/2022 dated 12.09.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivamogga, whereby the Family Court had rejected the I.A., the petitioner is before this Court. 2. I.A. dated 08.09.2025 is filed under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC to condone the delay in filing the additional documents. In support of the I.A., an affidavit is filed stating that the case is posted for further petitioner's evidence. It is stated that recently, she had obtained the original copy of food bill, medical certificates and marriage expenses bills, hospital bills, Aadhar card and birth certificate of the daughter, accident medical document, HDFC loan statements and loan closer statement. Hence, there is delay in production of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46465 WP No. 31293 of 2025 documents listed in this case is bonafide one. If the application is not allowed and the delay in filing the document is not condoned, she will be put to untold hardship and inconvenience. 3. The Family Court had rejected the I.A. dated 08.09.2025 by way of order impugned. In the order, the Family Court had discussed about each and every document which the petitioner wants to produce by way of this application. The Family Court had observed that the first document in the list is a bill issued by MLR Caterers which was issued to the petitioner on November 13, 2013. The second document is sari purchase bills issued to the petitioner on September 14, 2013 and the documents referred in serial number 3 to 5 consist of medical reports which are of March 2015. The documents in serial number 7 to 9 includes the naming ceremony invitation card, the naming ceremony hall bill and the original naming ceremony food bill dated December 9, 2018, October 16, 2018 and December 9, 2018 respectively. The Family Court had observed that the document listed at serial No.10 is a final bill issued by hospital which pertains to the petitioner's medical - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46465 WP No. 31293 of 2025 treatment, serial No.12 and 13 is the birth certificate and Aadhar card of the daughter and serial Nos.14 to 16 are fee payment receipts issued by the school and all these documents are very much in the possession of the petitioner even before the M.C. is filed and these documents are collected much before the commencement of the case. A few were obtained in the year 2024 and the petitioner had failed to present them in a timely manner to the Court. The counsel for the respondent has thoroughly examined the petitioner. Allowing her to produce additional documents at this stage would prolong the case further. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that mere delay in filing of the documents cannot be reason for the Family Court to reject the application. If the application is dismissed, it would cause lot of prejudice to the petitioner. When she is seeking permanent alimony, if all these documents are on record, it would help the petitioner to prove her claim for alimony. It is submitted that it is settled law that on technical grounds, these kinds of applications cannot be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46465 WP No. 31293 of 2025 dismissed. It is submitted that allowing the application is very much helpful to the petitioner to prove her case. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that this application is filed at a belated stage, and on those grounds, the application cannot be allowed. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. When an I.A. is filed seeking a particular relief, along with the I.A., an affidavit will be filed. The purpose of filing an affidavit is to state the reasons for what purpose the said application is filed and if there is delay, why the delay has occurred and all the relevant aspects has to be stated. In this case, in the affidavit, the petitioner has not stated why she is coming up with this application at this stage and for what purpose she wants to produce these documents and what is the relevancy of the documents to decide the dispute between the parties. Whether any factual basis is made in the pleadings is also not stated and the Family Court on the ground that all these documents are dated much prior to the filing of the M.C. had dismissed the application. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46465 WP No. 31293 of 2025 petitioner is seeking permanent alimony. It is stated that the documents are pertaining to the closure of the bank loan which is very much relevant for the purpose of deciding the financial status of the respondent. This Court is not convinced in the manner in which the application is filed and the manner in which the documents are filed before the Family Court without stating any reasons. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3