SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 440846

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
SRI LAXMAN S/O YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR – Appellant
Versus
SRI YALLAPPA S/O. BALAPPA WAGENNAVAR – Respondent
WP 100131/2023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 100131 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. LAXMAN S/O YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,

2. SMT. KALLAWWA W/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR,

AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,

BOTH ARE R/AT: JAMKHANDI, TQ. JAMKHANDI,

DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MRUTYUNJAY TATA BANGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. BALAPPA WAGENNAWAR,

AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

R/AT: OUTI GALLI, JAMKHANDI,

Digitally signed by TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 301.

CHANDRASHEKAR

LAXMAN

KATTIMANI

Location: HIGH

COURT OF 2. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR,

KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

R/AT: JUNJARWAD, TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI NOW R/AT: AWATI GALLI,

JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

3. SRI. PRAKASH S/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. H/W,

R/AT: JUNJARWAD, TQ. ATHANI,

DIST. BELAGAVI NOW AT R/AT: AWATI GALLI,

JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

4. SRI. RAMESH S/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR,

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. H/W, R/AT: JUNJARWAD, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI NOW R/AT: AWATI GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

5. SRI. SIDDU S/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. TRADE, R/AT: JUNJARWAD, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW R/AT: AWATI GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

6. SRI. HANAMANT S/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. TRADE, R/AT: JUNJARWAD, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW R/AT: AWATI GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

7. SRI. RAJU S/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC. TRADE, R/AT: JUNJARWAD, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI, NOW R/AT: AWATI GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

8. SMT. MALASHREE D/O. YALLAPPA WAGENNAWAR, AFTER MARRIAGE, SMT. MALASHREE W/O. BASAPPA TUNGALI @ SAMANGALI, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. H/W, R/AT: BANDIGANI NOW R/AT: AWATI GALLI, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. HUKKERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R8)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC JAMKHANDI IN O.S. NO.25 OF 2011 ON I.A. NO.VII DATED 03/11/2022 FILED UNDER ORDER

26 RULE 10(A) OF CPC COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

This petition is filed assailing the order dated

03.11.2022 passed by the Principal Civil Judge, Jamkhandi in O.S. No.25/2011 on I.A. No.VII rejecting the petitioners’ application under Order XXVI Rule 10(A) read with Section

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The petitioners filed a suit for partition and separate possession. When the case is posted for arguments, plaintiffs filed an application to conduct a DNA test of the plaintiffs to establish their paternity with defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 had made a claim that he is the son of Defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 and that the marriage between plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 is valid and legal.

3. The defendant No.1 has denied the status of plaintiff No.2 as legally wedded wife and also plaintiff No.1 as the son, when defendant No.1 claims that defendant No.2 is the legally wedded wife and when defendants No.3 to 8 are children of defendant No.1. The application is opposed by the defendants.

4. The Trial Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhabani Prasad Sena Vs. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for Women and another, (2010) 8 SCC 633 to reject the application on the premise that the DNA test is a sensitive issue. The Trial Court has held that such test invade the right of privacy of an individual.

5. The Trial Court has also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta and Others, (2022) 1 SCC 20. Said decisio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top