- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3877 WP No. 484 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 484 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI. MOHAMMED HUZAIFA S/O MOHAMMED UMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.10, 2ND CROSS, PAPAYYA REDDY LAYOUT, MANORAYANAPALYA, SULTANPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHEEP K.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NISHATH SABHA W/O MOHAMMED HUZAIFA D/O ASLAM SHAREEF, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.2, 2ND CROSS, MUDDAMMA GARDEN EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 046. 2. MINHA FATHIMA D/O MOHAMMED HUZAIFA Digitally signed by SOWMYA DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3877 WP No. 484 of 2026 AND NISHATH SABHA, AGED ABOUT 03 YEARS. 3. MIRHA FATHIMA D/O MOHAMMED HUZAIFA AND NISHATH SABHA, AGED ABOUT 03 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN-NISHATH SABHA RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.10, 2ND CROSS, PAPAYYA REDDY LAYOUT, SULTANPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. PRABHU, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 PASSED ON I.A NO.V AND VI BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL.PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN G AND WC NO.189/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ETC., - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3877 WP No. 484 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Mr.Pratheep K.C learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri. M. Prabu, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A No.V and I.A No. VI in G & WC No.189/2025 dated 18.12.2025, this writ petition is filed. 3. The writ petitioner filed I.A No.V under Order VI Rule 14A CPC seeking the Court to stay all further proceedings until respondent No.1 herein furnishes her true address particulars. The petitioner also filed another interlocutory application i.e., Order VI invoking Order XI Rule 1 CPC, to direct respondent No.1 herein to answer the interrogatories put forth by him. Both the applications stood dismissed through the impugned order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3877 WP No. 484 of 2026 4. Arguing on the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.1. Respondents 2 and 3 are their children. Respondents 2 and 3 are under the care and custody of the petitioner as of now. Respondent No.1 filed a petition invoking Guardian and Wards Act seeking custody of those children. Respondent No.1 furnished different address particulars before different forums. The address furnished by her in the petition filed i.e., in G & WC No. 189/2025 is also incorrect. Therefore, the petitioner filed one interlocutory application i.e., I.A V. Seeking the Court to stay all further proceedings till respondent No.1 furnishes her true and correct address particulars and another application i.e., I.A VI under Order XI CPC seeking the Court to direct respondent No.1 to answer the interrogatories put forth regarding the address particulars furnished. However, Both the applications stood dismissed. 5. Learned counsel states that it is the bounded duty of respondent No.1 to furnish her true and correct address particulars but she intentionally and wilfully misled the Court by giving wrong address particulars. Learned counsel states that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3877 WP No. 484 of 2026 as per Order VI Rule 14-A (5) CPC, when the registered address of a party is discovered to be incomplete, false or suspicious, the Court may stay the suit. But such a relief is not granted by the Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel who represents respondent No.1 states that as on the date of filing of the case respondent No.1 was residing in the address given and thereafter she shifted her residence and as soon as the petitioner filed the interlocutory application i.e., I.A V, respondent No.1 gave her current address particulars and therefore both the petitions stood dismissed. 7. On hearing the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 is seeking custody of the children and in case either interim or final custody is granted to respondent No.1 who does not even furnish her true and correct address particulars, the petitioner who is the father of those children will be put to serious hardship and furthermore the safety of the children will be at stake and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3877 WP No. 484 of 2026 hence both the interlocutory applications are required to be allowed. 8. It is not in dispute that on filing of I.A V by the petitioner herein, respondent No.1 has furnished her address particulars. However, as rightly contented by learned counsel for the petitioner, the address particulars given are not supported by any convincing proof. By the contents of Order VI Rule 14-A(6) CPC it is clear that where the suit is stayed or defence is struck out under sub-Rule 5 of Order VI Rule 14-A, the plaintiff or the defendant may after furnishing his true address apply to the Court for an order to set aside the order of stay or the order of striking out the defence. 9. In the case on hand, respondent No.1 has already furnished her true address particulars. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Family Court did not err in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner herein. However, having considered the apprehension of the petitioner, this Court considers desirable to direct respondent No.1 to furnish - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3877 WP No. 484 of 2026 sufficient proof in support of the particulars furnished by her. Thus, the writ petition is disposed of with the following:- ORDER The common order that is rendered by the Court of VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore on I.A No. V and I.A No. VI dated 18.12.2025 in G & WC No. 189/2025 is confirmed. However, the Court is directed to direct respondent No.1 herein to furnish sufficient proof in support of the particulars she furnished regarding her residential address within a period of 1 month. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3