- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34662 WP No. 17682 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 17682 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. GHOUSE PEER SON OF LATE MOHAMED YUSUF, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT 7th CROSS, DED HEND, MAHABOOB NAGAR, MARALURU DINNE, TUMAKURU AND DISTRICT - 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHIDAMBHAR SWAROOP T.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. TAHERA BANU WIFE OF GHOUSE PEER, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. KUMARI MUSKAN DAUGHTER OF GHOUSE PEER, AGED 20 YEARS. BOTH RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT CHIKKATOTLUKERE VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 128. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34662 WP No. 17682 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERLOCUTORY ORDER IA.NO.IV DATED 21-04- 2026 IN CRL.MISC.NO.333/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU, ANNX-A AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL ORDER This present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/husband challenging the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru,(for short 'the Family Court') in IA No.IV in Crl. Misc.No.333/2024. 2. The said Crl. Misc. No.333/2024 was filed by the wife and daughter seeking maintenance from the petitioner- husband. When the matter was posted for recording the petitioners' evidence, the petitioner filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to the Family Court to examine petitioner No.1/wife, as he intended to elicit certain facts from her during cross- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34662 WP No. 17682 of 2026 examination. He mainly contended that petitioner No.2/daughter had no knowledge of the marital issues between him and his wife and, therefore, petitioner No.1 ought to be examined first. 3. The Family Court observed that there was no dispute regarding the relationship between petitioner No.1 and the respondent as husband and wife and that it was not for the Court to direct the petitioners as to the order in which they should examine their witnesses. Accordingly, the application came to be dismissed. 4. Having considered the material on record, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order. Admittedly, the proceedings have been initiated by the wife and daughter seeking maintenance. It is for the petitioner therein to adduce their evidence in the manner they deem appropriate. The petitioner cannot insist that respondnet No.1 be examined first, nor can the Court issue such a direction. The application filed before the Family Court was premature and rightly came to be dismissed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34662 WP No. 17682 of 2026 5. No ground is made out warranting interference with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE TMP List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1