- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 36076 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMAPRASAD R., S/O SRI. S.RAGHUNATHA RAO AGED 33 YEARS 65, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BDA LAYOUT, II STAGE, 13TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072 PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT. NO. 1292, 5TH BLOCK SMV LAYOUT BANAGALORE - 560 056 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. DIVYA S., W/O SRI.RAMAPRASAD R., D/O B.SOMASHEKARA AGED 28 YEARS BEHIND BANANTAMARAMMA TEMPLE, S.KARIYAPPA ROAD, KANAKAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 117 PREVIOUSLY AT. NO. 1292, 5TH BLOCK SMV LAYOUT BANAGALORE - 560 056 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHASHANK SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO. 172/2023. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, 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.No.6 in Crl.Misc.No.172/2023 dated 15.10.2024 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the application filed under Section 91 Read with Section 311 of CrPC., the husband is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. It is the case that the wife had filed the Crl.Misc.No.172/2023 seeking maintenance from the husband. In that the husband had filed I.A.6 under Section 91 of CrPC seeking direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, its disputed person to come before the Court for furnishing the Employee details of the wife and also giving evidence. The same was dismissed by the Family Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024 4. While dismissing the I.A., the Family Court had observed that earlier, the husband had filed an I.A. seeking production of documents directing the employer of the wife to furnish the documents. The husband without ascertaining where actually the wife is working he has sought the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to furnish the details. The Family Court had further observed that it is the duty of the husband to ascertain the actual employment of the wife and he cannot ask somebody to furnish documents required without ascertaining. Accordingly, the Family Court had dismissed the I.A. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the wife is suppressing the facts and she has taken several loans and she is working somewhere. To ascertaining the same, they have filed the application and the Family Court ought to have allowed the application. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that earlier when the husband has stated that the wife is working with a particular employer, he was summoned and he has placed all the documents to show that the wife is not working, but still one after the other they are coming up with - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024 these kinds of applications. It is submitted that the husband has an obligation to take care of the wife and without fulfilling the obligation he is coming up with these kinds of frivolous applications. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The I.A. filed by the husband is without any basis. The summons cannot be issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on the husband’s assumptions and presumptions that the wife is working and that kind of general orders cannot be passed by the Court. It is for the husband to give the details and basing on that the Family Court would have passed the orders. Interestingly in this case already according to the husband, the wife was working with some person and that person was summoned earlier and he has stated before the Family Court that she has resigned and this kind of an activity, the Court cannot take up and the Family Court had rightly dismissed the I.A. and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024 ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 44