- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20768 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. N. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 23/138, GROUND FLOOR, 'SRI SATHYA NILAYA', 8TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BTM I STAGE, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH U.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. S. KAVITHA W/O. SRI. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23/138, THIRD FLOOR, 'SRI SATHYA NILAYA', 8TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS, BTM I STAGE, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 029. 2. SRI. V. RAJESH, S/O. SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT POLICE STATION, HUNACHUR, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATION AIRPORT ROAD, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026 DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 300. …RESPONDENTS (V/O DTD:10.07.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT AND NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MC NO. 3318/19 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU (ANNX-J) AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 06.06.26 PASSED ON IA NO. 10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O. 26 RULE 10A OF CPC, 1908 IN M.C.NO. 3318/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE H) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW 1.A.NO.10 FILED BY PETITIONER U/O. 26 RULE 10A OF CPC, 1908 IN M.C.NO. 3318/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE - F), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE 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 petition is filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court in IA No.10 dated 10.10.2025 in MC No.3318/2019 dated 06.06.2026 which was filed by husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery against respondent No.1/adulterer and respondent No.2/wife. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026 2. In the cross-examination of RW1 dated 9.10.2025 when Ex.P8 was confronted to the witness, she denied her signature and she also stated that she has no objection for sending the signature in the vakalath and objection statement, for comparison with the signatures in Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 for forensic examination. 3. I have perused the documents at Ex.P5 and P8. The petitioner/husband filed an application before the trial court for sending the said documents to the FSL. But the trial court though extracted that she has no objection for sending the documents to the handwriting expert, as she stated that he obtained signature, by assaulting and scolding, the said application was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied upon the citation in W.P.No.382/2021 dated 26.09.2023 in case of Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs Smt.Venkatalakshmamma and Ors., and also the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Garre Mallikarjuna Rao (dead) by LRs and Ors Vs Nalabothu Punniah reported in 2013 (4) SCC 546 in which Hon’ble Apex court has affirmed the judgment rendered in Ajay - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026 Kumar Parmar Vs State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (12) SCC 406 that ‘while dealing with expert opinion/opinion of handwriting expert has held that the opinion of handwriting expert is fallible / liable to error like that of any other witness, it cannot be brushed as side. It has also been held in the said precedent of the Apex Court that as a matter of prudence and caution the courts should hesitate or be slow in comparing the signature, however, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision.” 5. Ex.P5 is the separation agreement entered between both the parties on 01.09.2018, in which the signature of RW1 is affixed on each and every page and Ex.P8 is the confession letter written by respondent No.2 in which her signature was also affixed. As she denied her signatures on the crucial documents, he intended to send the document to the FSL for comparison, with her admitted signatures in vakalath and also statement of objections filed by her. Moreover the respondent has no objection for sending them to the FSL. The Family - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026 Court without appreciating the facts properly dismissed the application and the said order of the trial court is erroneous and is quashed. Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed. Therefore, the order in M.C.No.3318/2019 dated 06.06.2026 is set aside. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1