IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 34435 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

RAVINDRA RAJ URS K.S S/O SATYANARAYAN RAJ URS, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARTHIKERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRA KANTHARAJA URS B.G., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH AND:

COURT OF KARNATAKA GAYATHRI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT SRI BALAJI NILAYA, NO.17/18, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, SONNENAHALLI, MARUTHINAGAR, JNANABHARATHI POST, BENGALURU - 560 056.

…RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTOIRAI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER i.e., ANNEXURE-E DATED 27/09/2025 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE 6^TH ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU IN MC NO.674/2022 ON THE I.A.NO.5 UNDER SECTIONS 63 AND 65 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition is directed against orders dated 27.09.2025 passed by the trial court in M.C.No.674/2022.

3. The prayer in this writ petition is as under:

“WHEREFORE, the petitioner/respondent most humbly prays that this Honourable court may be pleased to:-

i. Call for the records in MC.No.674/2022 on the file of Honourable 6^th Additional Family Court at Bengaluru.

ii. Issue of writ of certoirai or any other writ or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order ie., Annexure-E dated 27/09/2025 passed by the Honourable 6^th Additional Family Court at Bengaluru in MC.No.674/2022 on the I.A.No.5 Under Section 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act.

iii. To grant such other relief/s as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and allow the writ petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that I.A.

No.5 was filed under Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act by the petitioner in M.C.No.674/2022, it was allowed without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file objections, to the said application.

5. By virtue of the said order, the respondent herein was permitted to produce the xerox copies of the disputed documents. Therefore, prayed to stay the further proceedings in M.C.No.674/2022.

6. Perused the material available on record. The said I.A.No.5 was filed on 27.09.2025. The copy of the said application is in Annexure-D. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner averred that para No.2.

“I state that, I have filed the above suit for decree of divorce against the respondent. I state that the above said documents are in custody of the respondents and was hidden in the cupboard in my matrimonial house and when I encountered the said documents I could only take pictures of the documents and was preserved in my phone since long time and now I am living separately with my parents therefore I am unable to produce the original documents of the same and after filing of the suit I made attempts to collect the original relevant documents but failed.”

7. According to the case of the petitioner, it was xerox copies of the documents as original was not available with her.

8. Looking at the said order sheet dated 27.09.2025, the Family Court without giving an opportunity to the other side allowed the said application and permitted the petitioner to produce the xerox copy of the documents. It is true that mere marking of the documents does not mean that contents are proved. However, from the order sheet of the trial court, it appears that without giving an opportunity to other side and not considering essential requirement of law in respect of production of secondary evidence, allowed the application. If petitioner herein had stated that he has ‘no objections’ to the said application same ought to be noted in the order sheet. Th