Dismissed¶42

Sri. Ramaprasad R v. Smt Divya S

Karnataka HC13 Aug 2025WP/36076/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 227 dismissed; Section 91 r/w Section 311 CrPC application in maintenance proceedings; summons to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner; disclosure of wife's employment details; husband's duty to ascertain actual employment; earlier employer summoned and stated wife resigned; Family Court Bangalore; Karnataka HC 2025; no interference with Family Court order.

What did the court decide?

Summons cannot be issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on the husband's mere assumptions and presumptions that the wife is working; such general orders cannot be passed by the Court, and it is for the husband to give the details on which the Family Court would then act. ¶37

Sri. Ramaprasad R Vs Smt Divya S — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court erred in dismissing I.A.No.6 filed by the husband under Section 91 read with Section 311 CrPC, which sought a direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, to furnish the wife's employee details and give evidence in the pending maintenance proceedings (Crl.Misc.No.172/2023).

¶26

Court's answer

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The I.A. filed by the husband was without any basis: the person with whom, according to the husband, the wife was working had already been summoned and had stated before the Family Court that she had resigned; the Court cannot take up such an activity.

¶37

Key takeaways

The Family Court had rightly dismissed the I.A., and this Court found no reasons to interfere with the well-considered order passed by the Family Court.ratio¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), 13 August 2025 - dismissed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the husband challenging the Family Court's rejection of his I.A.No.6 (Section 91 read with Section 311 CrPC) in the maintenance case Crl.Misc.No.172/2023, which sought a direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, to furnish the wife's employee details and give evidence. Held: summons cannot be issued to the Provident Fund Commissioner on the husband's assumptions and presumptions that the wife is working, and such general orders cannot be passed; it is for the husband to supply the details of her employment. The person alleged to be employing the wife had earlier been summoned and had told the Family Court that she had resigned. The Family Court had rightly dismissed the I.A. and the High Court declined to interfere; all I.As. in the writ petition stood closed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 36076 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. RAMAPRASAD R., S/O SRI. S.RAGHUNATHA RAO AGED 33 YEARS 65, 1^ST MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, BDA LAYOUT, II STAGE, 13^TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI, BENGALURU - 560 072

¶11

PREVIOUSLY RESIDING AT. NO. 1292, 5^TH BLOCK SMV LAYOUT BANAGALORE - 560 056

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

SMT. DIVYA S., W/O SRI.RAMAPRASAD R., D/O B.SOMASHEKARA AGED 28 YEARS BEHIND BANANTAMARAMMA TEMPLE, S.KARIYAPPA ROAD, KANAKAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 117

¶17

PREVIOUSLY AT. NO. 1292, 5^TH BLOCK SMV LAYOUT BANAGALORE - 560 056

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. SHASHANK SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE LEARNED VI ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU IN CRL.MISC.NO. 172/2023.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.6 in Crl.Misc.No.172/2023 dated 15.10.2024 by the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the application filed under Section 91 Read with Section 311 of CrPC., the husband is before this Court.

¶27

The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶28

It is the case that the wife had filed the Crl.Misc.No.172/2023 seeking maintenance from the husband. In that the husband had filed I.A.6 under Section 91 of CrPC seeking direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore, its disputed person to come before the Court for furnishing the Employee details of the wife and also giving evidence. The same was dismissed by the Family Court.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

While dismissing the I.A., the Family Court had observed that earlier, the husband had filed an I.A. seeking production of documents directing the employer of the wife to furnish the documents. The husband without ascertaining where actually the wife is working he has sought the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to furnish the details. The Family Court had further observed that it is the duty of the husband to ascertain the actual employment of the wife and he cannot ask somebody to furnish documents required without ascertaining. Accordingly, the Family Court had dismissed the I.A.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner/husband submits that the wife is suppressing the facts and she has taken several loans and she is working somewhere. To ascertaining the same, they have filed the application and the Family Court ought to have allowed the application.

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that earlier when the husband has stated that the wife is working with a particular employer, he was summoned and he has placed all the documents to show that the wife is not working, but still one after the other they are coming up with

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

these kinds of applications. It is submitted that the husband has an obligation to take care of the wife and without fulfilling the obligation he is coming up with these kinds of frivolous applications.

¶37

Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The I.A. filed by the husband is without any basis. The summons cannot be issued to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on the husband’s assumptions and presumptions that the wife is working and that kind of general orders cannot be passed by the Court. It is for the husband to give the details and basing on that the Family Court would have passed the orders. Interestingly in this case already according to the husband, the wife was working with some person and that person was summoned earlier and he has stated before the Family Court that she has resigned and this kind of an activity, the Court cannot take up and the Family Court had rightly dismissed the I.A. and this Court do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Family Court. Hence, this Court is passing the following:

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:31405 WP No. 36076 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶43

ii. All I.As. in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶44