- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7031 WP No. 11723 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO. 11723 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA H, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O NO. 421, BENAKA, 27TH CROSS, B BLOCK, J P NAGAR, MYSORE - 570008 PRESENTLY R/O NO. 189, GROUND FLOOR, 6TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUPRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S V PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT SUMAN S W/O SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR, D/O R SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NO. 1588, 2ND CROSS, M G ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572101. Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7031 WP No. 11723 of 2025 2. NEELOTHPALA MANOHAR W/O SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, 3. SOWMYA NAYAKI D/O SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS, THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER AND SUMAN S. THE FIRST RESPONDENT. ALL ARE R/O NO. 1588, 2ND CROSS, M G ROAD, TUMAKURU - 572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.03.2025 C.MIS. 79/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU ON I.A. NO. VIII AND IX PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7031 WP No. 11723 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Guruprasad who represents Sri.S.V.Prakash learned counsel on record for the petitioner as well as Sri.M.B.Chandra Chooda learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Assailing the common order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru on I.A.Nos.VIII and IX in Crl.Misc.No.79/2020 dated 03.03.2025, this writ petition is filed. 3. Petitioner/husband filed I.A.No.VIII seeking the Court to summon the appointment orders and salary particulars of respondent No.1/wife from the Vidyavahini Pre-University College, Tumakuru. Respondents filed I.A.No.IX seeking the Court to permit them to amend the petition filed by them under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Family Court dismissed I.A.No.VIII filed by petitioner herein and allowed I.A.No.IX filed by respondents herein. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7031 WP No. 11723 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is under obligation to establish the financial status of his wife i.e., respondent No.1 herein and therefore, he sought for summoning the appointment order and salary particulars pertaining to her. But the Family Court, without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons, rejected the said application. Learned counsel also states that respondents filed a petition under Order VI Rule 17 i.e., I.A.No.IX at a belated stage and therefore, the Court ought to have dismissed the said application, but it allowed the same. Learned counsel contends that in case respondents are of the opinion that they are entitled to a higher sum as maintenance, they can as well invoke Section 127 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand states that respondents seek for expeditious disposal of the case filed by them under Section 125 Cr.P.C., and they have no serious objection for allowing the interlocutory application filed by petitioner i.e., - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7031 WP No. 11723 of 2025 I.A.No.VIII. Learned counsel contends that so far as I.A.No.IX is concerned, respondents have not claimed justifiable sum as maintenance and the Court has not taken a decision with regard to their entitlement yet and the case filed by them under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is still pending and therefore, they are entitled to claim the amount as sought for through I.A.No.IX. 6. The relief sought for by respondents through I.A.No.IX is to permit them to amend their pleadings and to indicate proper sum which they are entitled towards maintenance. 7. To what extent respondents are indeed entitled as maintenance and their entitlement should be decided by the concerned Court basing on the evidence brought on record. Admittedly, no prejudice will be caused to petitioner herein on allowing the amendment sought for. That apart, Family Court will get an opportunity to dispose of the matter comprehensively so that future litigation can - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7031 WP No. 11723 of 2025 be avoided. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the decision taken by the Family Court on I.A.No.IX. 8. As far as the relief sought for through I.A.No.VIII by petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought for is justifiable. The Family Court ought to have given an opportunity to petitioner to project his version through summoning the relevant record. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The order rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru on I.A.No.VIII in Crl.Misc.No.79/2020 dated 03.03.2025 is set aside. Consequently, the said interlocutory application is allowed. (ii) The order rendered by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru on I.A.No.IX in Cri.Misc.No.79/2020 dated 03.03.2025 is confirmed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7031 WP No. 11723 of 2025 (iii) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of and thereby the proceedings in I.A.No.1/2025 are closed. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9