Disposed¶47

Mrs Veena Santhosh v. Mr Santhosh Nayak

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026WP/12713/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition Article 226 Article 227 certiorari Karnataka High Court Family Court Udupi Principal Judge Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 production of documents applications interim maintenance evidence not taken adjournment 24.02.2026 24.03.2026 examination-in-chief expeditious disposal directions wife petitioner husband respondent divorce decree M.C.No.121/2021 18.01.2023 no notice to respondent disposed of GM-FC Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: the Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi to dispose of the petitioner's applications for production of documents and record her evidence in Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 expeditiously; Family Court to serve a copy of the order on the respondent; Registry to forward a copy of the order to the concerned Court forthwith. ¶47

Mrs Veena Santhosh Vs Mr Santhosh Nayak — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court, Udupi should be directed to dispose of the petitioner's applications for production of documents in Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 expeditiously and record her evidence. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

Record disclosed justification in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner; the Court considered it desirable to dispose of the writ petition and give directions.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi is directed to take all steps to dispose of the applications for production of documents filed by the petitioner and to record the petitioner's evidence in Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 as expeditiously as possible.

¶43

Key takeaways

No notice was issued to the respondent because no adverse orders were passed and the petition was disposed of in the interest of both parties; the Family Court is directed to serve a copy of the order on the respondent to inform him of the filing and disposal of the petition.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, 23.04.2026 — Writ Petition No.12713 of 2026 (GM-FC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner-wife sought certiorari to quash Family Court, Udupi orders dated 24/02/2026 and 24/03/2026 in Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 insofar as her applications for production of documents were not considered and her evidence was not taken despite her readiness on those dates (her earlier divorce-decree context: respondent's M.C.No.121/2021, decree granted 18.01.2023). Finding justification in her counsel's submission, the Court disposed of the petition without issuing notice to the respondent (no adverse orders passed), directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi to dispose of the document-production applications and record the petitioner's evidence in Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 as expeditiously as possible; the Family Court was further directed to serve the order on the respondent, and the Registry to forward it to the concerned Court forthwith.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:22763 WP No. 12713 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.12713 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MRS VEENA SANTHOSH W/O SANTHOSH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 4-92(E)

¶11

ADARSHA COMPLEX, OPP. RCC CHURCH NO. 80, BADAGANABETTU VILLAGE

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MANIPAL POST, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576104.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. ADLENE STEPHANIE MENDES, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

MR SANTHOSH NAYAK

¶18

S/O LATE RANGAPPA NAYAK

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22763 WP No. 12713 of 2026

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 4-92(1-5)

¶22

ADARSHA COMPLEX, OPP. RCC CHURCH NO. 80, BADAGANABETTU VILLAGE MANIPAL POST, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT 576104

¶23

…RESPONDENT

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 24/02/2026 AND 24/03/2026 PASSED IN CRL. MISC NO.16/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, UDUPI, VIDE ANNEXURE-A, INSOFAR AS NOT CONSIDERING THE APPLICATIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE B AND C RESPECTIVELY, AND NOT TAKING UP OF THE PETITIONERS EVIDENCE DESPITE THE PETITIONER'S READINESS AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:22763 WP No. 12713 of 2026

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Heard Smt.Adlene Stephanie Mendes, learned

¶32

counsel for the petitioner.

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Family Court’) to dispose of the applications for production of documents in Crl.Misc. No.16/2024 expeditiously, which is pending within a time frame.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the wife of the respondent. The respondent filed M.C.No.121/2021 seeking for dissolution of marriage and on 18.01.2023, the Family Court granted decree of divorce. It is submitted that, the petitioner filed petition in Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 along with application for interim maintenance and also filed applications for production of documents.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:22763 WP No. 12713 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

It is further submitted that although the

¶38

petitioner was present and ready for her examination-inchief on 24.02.2026 and 24.03.2026, the learned Family Judge adjourned the case without taking up her evidence. Being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶39

Record discloses justification in the submission

¶40

that is made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, this Court considers desirable to dispose of the writ petition and give directions. Hence, the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) Writ petition is disposed of .

¶43

(ii) The Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi is directed to take all steps to dispose of the applications for production of documents filed by the petitioner and record the evidence of the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.16/2024 as expeditiously as possible.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22763 WP No. 12713 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(iii) This Court is not issuing the notice to the respondent as no adverse orders are passed and disposed of the petition in the interest of both the parties.

¶47

(iv) As the writ petition is disposed of without notice to respondent, Family Court is directed to serve copy of this order to respondent so as to give notice to respondent, about filing of this petition and its disposal.

¶48

(v) Registry to forward copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith.

¶49

SD/(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Mrs Veena Santhosh v. Mr Santhosh Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Veena Santhosh v. Mr Santhosh Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Venkateswara Rao Surapaneni Vs Smt Swathi Koganti

Smt Sahana K Vs Sri Santhosh S Gowda

Sri Shivamurthy K P Vs Smt Manasa

Smt M R Kavya Kusuma Vs Sri R Harish

The Manager Vs Smt. Bharathi R

Mr.Amit Karekar Vs Smt.Vaishali