Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 30893 (KAR)

MR VENKATESH GOWDA T R v. MRS POOJA Y C

WP/8526/2026 · 2026-07-20

P Sree Sudha

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190862026 NC: 2026:KHC:37989 WP No. 8526 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 8526 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR VENKATESH GOWDA T R S/O LATE RAJE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT VAYUPUTRA NILAYA, 9TH CROSS, DEVAMMA LAYOUT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-573 116. …PETITIONER (BY MR. BIJOY M T., ADVOCATE) AND: MRS. POOJA Y C W/O MR. VENKATESH GOWDA T R AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT VAYUPUTRA NILAYA, 9TH CROSS, DEVAMMA LAYOUT, CHANNARAYAPATNA, HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-573 116. …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.03.2026 (ANNEXURE C) PASSED IN CRL.MISC. NO.84/2024 BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, HASSAN AND ALLOW THE MEMO FILED BY THE PETITION ER (ANNEXURE B) SEEKING SUMMONING OF Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190862026 NC: 2026:KHC:37989 WP No. 8526 of 2026 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT AND BANK RECORDS OF THE RESPONDENT 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 writ petition is filed by the petitioner/husband for quashing of the order dated 06.03.2026 passed in Crl.Misc.No.84/2024 by the I Additional Family Court, Hassan, which is filed by wife for maintenance. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent is served but not present. 3. Perused the order passed by the Family Court dated 06.03.2026 which reads as follows. “Perused the records. Perused the memo dt 04.03.2026 filed by the counsel for the respondent. Perused the earlier memo dtd 13.01.2026 filed by the respondent counsel. The respondent has himself produced the copy of the resignation letter and also produced the copy of RTI application filed before the EPF office. Heard both sides. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190862026 NC: 2026:KHC:37989 WP No. 8526 of 2026 In view of the resignation letter and also the application given by the respondent before the EPF, this court is of the opinion that there is no necessity to summons the documents mentioned in the memo dt 04.03.2026. Hence, memo is rejected. R/C prays time to produce the bank statements as ordered by this court on 09.02.2026. Hence, call on 13.03.2026.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the matter before the Family Court is posted for arguments of both sides. So he filed two memos and the memos were rejected. The order dated 14.01.2026 shows that the respondent i.e, petitioner herein filed a memo with certain documents. The court observed that she worked in HDFC Bank, Bangalore as a Sales Officer prior to the marriage and there was more than reasonable opportunity given to cross examine PW1 and it was posted for his evidence. Petitoner/husband was given liberty to file the relevant documents in his evidence, with the said observation, the memo was dismissed. But again another memo was filed to direct the manager of the HDFC Bank to produce the bank statements, in which a direction was given to - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010190862026 NC: 2026:KHC:37989 WP No. 8526 of 2026 both petitioner and respondent to produce the Bank Statements of past 3 years within 2 weeks. 5. Petitioner herein further contended that there was a direction by the Family Court on 21.02.2026 for filing of Bank Statement and he filed a memo seeking time for summoning of the relevant documents including Bank Statements but the same was rejected by the Family Court and the memo was not considered, as per the order dated 04.03.2026. 6. This court finds that the order of the trial court rejecting the memos is not illegal as per the petitioner/husband has to file proper application under correct provisions of law, but not memos. Therefore, this writ petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7