Sri. N. Nagaraju Vs Smt. S. Kavitha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri. N. Nagaraju Vs Smt. S. Kavitha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the order dated 06.06.2026 in M.C.No.3318/2019 (dismissing IA No.10 under Order XXVI Rule 10A CPC seeking FSL examination of Ex.P5 and Ex.P8) is set aside/quashed, and IA No.10 accordingly stands allowed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Family Court's dismissal of IA No.10 (filed under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC, 1908 in M.C.No.3318/2019, seeking to send Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 to the FSL for comparison of RW1's disputed signatures with her admitted signatures) was erroneous and should be set aside.

Court's answer

The Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts, erroneously dismissed the application to send Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 to the FSL for comparison with RW1's admitted signatures, even though RW1 had denied her signatures on those crucial documents and had raised no objection to the forensic comparison; the impugned order of the trial court is therefore erroneous and is quashed.

Ratio / Principle

Applying the principle laid down in the cited Apex Court precedents (Garre Mallikarjuna Rao v Nalabothu Punniah, affirming Ajay Kumar Parmar v State of Rajasthan) that the opinion of a handwriting expert, though fallible like any other witness, cannot be brushed aside, and that while courts should be slow to compare signatures themselves they may do so where an expert's or a witness's opinion exists, the court found that RW1's denial of her signatures on Ex.P5/Ex.P8, coupled with her stated no objection, justified sending the documents to the FSL for comparison with her admitted signatures in the vakalath and statement of objections.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (P Sree Sudha, J.; oral order dated 10.07.2026) allowed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the husband in a divorce proceeding (M.C.No.3318/2019, on grounds of cruelty and adultery) pending before the V Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. The Family Court had dismissed the husband's IA No.10 under Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC, 1908, which sought to send Ex.P5 (separation agreement dated 01.09.2018, signed by RW1 on every page) and Ex.P8 (confession letter bearing her signature) to the FSL for comparison with her admitted signatures on the vakalath and statement of objections, after RW1 denied her signatures during cross-examination on 09.10.2025 while expressly stating no objection to forensic comparison. Relying on Garre Mallikarjuna Rao (dead) by LRs and Ors v Nalabothu Punniah, (2013) 4 SCC 546, which affirmed Ajay Kumar Parmar v State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 406 — handwriting-expert opinion is fallible/liable to error like any other witness but cannot be brushed aside; courts should hesitate or be slow in comparing signatures themselves, but where an opinion of an expert or witness exists the court may apply its own observation by comparing signatures or handwritings to give decisive weight to its decision — the court held that the Family Court, without properly appreciating the facts, had erroneously dismissed the application, quashed the order dated 06.06.2026, and allowed the petition.

NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20768 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SRI. N. NAGARAJU S/O. LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 23/138, GROUND FLOOR, 'SRI SATHYA NILAYA', 8^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, BTM I STAGE, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 029.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH U.T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

SMT. S. KAVITHA W/O. SRI. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23/138, THIRD FLOOR, 'SRI SATHYA NILAYA', 8^TH MAIN, 1^ST CROSS, BTM I STAGE, NEW GURAPPANA PALYA, BENGALURU - 560 029.

SRI. V. RAJESH, S/O. SRI. VENKATACHALAPATHY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS HEAD CONSTABLE, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT POLICE STATION, HUNACHUR, KEMPEGOWDA INTERNATION AIRPORT ROAD,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026

HC-KAR

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 300.

…RESPONDENTS

(V/O DTD:10.07.2026 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT AND NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN MC NO. 3318/19 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU (ANNX-J) AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DTD 06.06.26 PASSED ON IA NO. 10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/O. 26 RULE 10A OF CPC, 1908 IN M.C.NO. 3318/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE H) AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW 1.A.NO.10 FILED BY PETITIONER U/O. 26 RULE 10A OF CPC, 1908 IN M.C.NO. 3318/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE V ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE - F), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the husband against the order of the Family Court in IA No.10 dated 10.10.2025 in MC No.3318/2019 dated 06.06.2026 which was filed by husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery against respondent No.1/adulterer and respondent No.2/wife.

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026

HC-KAR

In the cross-examination of RW1 dated 9.10.2025 when Ex.P8 was confronted to the witness, she denied her signature and she also stated that she has no objection for sending the signature in the vakalath and objection statement, for comparison with the signatures in Ex.P5 and Ex.P8 for forensic examination.

I have perused the documents at Ex.P5 and P8. The petitioner/husband filed an application before the trial court for sending the said documents to the FSL. But the trial court though extracted that she has no objection for sending the documents to the handwriting expert, as she stated that he obtained signature, by assaulting and scolding, the said application was dismissed.

Learned counsel for petitioner further relied upon the citation in W.P.No.382/2021 dated 26.09.2023 in case of Sri.Narayanaswamy Vs Smt.Venkatalakshmamma and Ors. , and also the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Garre Mallikarjuna Rao (dead) by LRs and Ors Vs Nalabothu Punniah reported in 2013 (4) SCC 546 in which Hon’ble Apex court has affirmed the judgment rendered in Ajay

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026

HC-KAR

Kumar Parmar Vs State of Rajasthan reported in 2012 (12) SCC 406 that ‘ while dealing with expert opinion/opinion of handwriting expert has held that the opinion of handwriting expert is fallible / liable to error like that of any other witness, it cannot be brushed as side. It has also been held in the said precedent of the Apex Court that as a matter of prudence and caution the courts should hesitate or be slow in comparing the signature, however, where there is an opinion whether of an expert, or of any witness, the court may then apply its own observation by comparing the signatures, or handwritings for providing a decisive weight or influence to its decision. ”

Ex.P5 is the separation agreement entered between both the parties on 01.09.2018, in which the signature of RW1 is affixed on each and every page and Ex.P8 is the confession letter written by respondent No.2 in which her signature was also affixed. As she denied her signatures on the crucial documents, he intended to send the document to the FSL for comparison, with her admitted signatures in vakalath and also statement of objections filed by her. Moreover the respondent has no objection for sending them to the FSL. The Family

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:35548 WP No. 20768 of 2026

HC-KAR

Court without appreciating the facts properly dismissed the application and the said order of the trial court is erroneous and is quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed .

Therefore, the order in M.C.No.3318/2019 dated

06.06.2026 is set aside.

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

AKV CT:NR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1