Smt Amulya W/O Anand Yattinamani Vs Dr.Anand S/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Amulya W/O Anand Yattinamani Vs Dr.Anand S/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned Family Court order dated 06.08.2025 quashed in part; petitioner permitted to produce the copy of her complaint and the copy of the police endorsement; production of the police undertaking and the attendance register declined as unnecessary/inadmissible; both parties directed to cooperate for early disposal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the undertaking given by the respondent-husband and his brother before the police is admissible and may be produced in evidence. +3 more

Court's answer

The undertaking given by the respondent-husband and his brother before the police is inadmissible in evidence, and the Trial Court was justified in rejecting the application for its production.

Ratio / Principle

Whether the complaint was filed or registered is a matter of evidence; the petitioner-wife is permitted to produce the copy of the complaint.

Key takeaways

Since the respondent-husband does not seriously dispute that the petitioner-wife visited the police station on a few days, there is no need to secure the attendance register from the police station.ratio¶30
As the police have not registered the complaint said to have been filed by the petitioner, there is no point in summoning the Police Department to produce the complaint copy.ratio¶31
The petitioner is permitted to produce the copy of the endorsement given by the police on her application.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-CPC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the wife challenging the order dated 06.08.2025 of the Hon'ble I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, in M.C.No.59/2025 on I.A.No.09/2025 (Annexure-E), rejecting her application for production of three documents. Held: (i) the undertaking allegedly given by the respondent-husband and his brother before the police is inadmissible in evidence and the Trial Court was justified in rejecting its production; (ii) whether the wife's complaint was filed or registered is a matter of evidence, and she is permitted to produce its copy; (iii) since the husband does not seriously dispute that the wife visited the police station on a few days, there is no need to secure the police attendance register; (iv) as the complaint is stated to be unregistered, there is no point in summoning the Police Department to produce the complaint copy, but the wife is permitted to produce the copy of the endorsement given by the police on her application. The impugned order was quashed in part and the petition disposed of, with a direction that both parties cooperate for early disposal.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 105769 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. AMULYA W/O. ANAND YATTINAMANI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. 130, KOTTILINGESHWAR NAGAR, BEHIND KSRTC WORK SHOP, HUBBALLI-580024.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VISHWANATH S.BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DR. ANAND S/O. PRADEEP YATTINAMANI AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. CTS NO. 2808/B, GURUWAR PETH, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK.

…RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

(BY SMT.BHAGYASHREE N.BIKKANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.08.2025 PASSED ON THE FILES HON’BLE I ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, BEARING M.C.NO.59/2025 ON I.A.NO.09/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

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

This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Family Court rejecting the petitioner's application for production of three documents.

Document No.1 is said to be an undertaking given by respondent - husband and his brother before the police. The undertaking is said to have been given before the police. Such document is inadmissible in evidence and the Trial Court is justified in rejecting the application for production of said document.

The second document is said to be the copy of the complaint filed by petitioner - wife.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that no such complaint was ever registered and filed before the police.

Whether the complaint was filed or registered is a matter of evidence. The petitioner - wife should be permitted to produce the copy of the complaint.

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025

HC-KAR

The third document is relating to the attendance register maintained by the police which allegedly recorded the attendance of the petitioner - wife in the police station for certain days.

Learned counsel for the respondent - husband would submit that the respondent - husband does not seriously dispute the fact that the petitioner – wife might have visited the police station on few days as contended by the petitioner. If that is the statement, then there is no need to secure the attendance register from the police station.

It is stated that the police have not registered the complaint said to have been filed by the petitioner - wife. If it is not registered, there is no point in summoning the Police Department to produce the complaint copy which is said to have been filed by the petitioner. However, since learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on application by the petitioner, an endorsement is given by the police, the petitioner is permitted to produce the copy of the said endorsement.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:14221 WP No. 105769 of 2025

HC-KAR

For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order

is quashed in part.

With these observations the petition is disposed of .

Both parties shall cooperate for early disposal.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CLK Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32