Disposed¶50

Sathyanarayana Manohar v. Suman S

Karnataka HC13 Jul 2026WP/20911/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 writ (GM-FC) by Sathyanarayana Manohar against Family Court Tumakuru order dated 15.06.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.79/2020; re-issuance of summons to Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School, Tumakuru, for salary particulars of respondent No.1 Suman S.; documents from Vidyavahini PU College; production of school records; interim/procedural Family Court order set at nought by direction to summon witness; respondents include minors represented by mother; decision dated 13.07.2026; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Family Court to re-issue summons to the Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School, Tumakuru, for production of salary particulars of respondent No.1; writ petition disposed of with these observations. ¶50

Sathyanarayana Manohar Vs Suman S — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:35455 WP No. 20911 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 20911 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR S/O LATE SATHYANARAYANA. H, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO. 189, GROUND FLOOR, 6TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, R.T.NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. S. V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

SUMAN S., W/O SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR, D/O R.SHANKAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶15

NEEOTHPALA MANOHAR S/O. SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS,

¶16

SOWMYA NAYAKI D/O. SATHYANARAYANA MANOHAR, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶17

THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:35455 WP No. 20911 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER SUMAN S, THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶21

ALL THE RESPONDENTS ARE R/AT NO.1588 2ND CROSS, M. G. ROAD, TUMAKURU-572101.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.06.2026 PASSED BY THE COURT OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU IN CRL.MISC. NO.79/2020 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-P TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶25

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This petition is filed against the order of the Family Court in Crl.Misc.No.79/2020 dated 15.06.2026 at Annexure-P which reads as follows:

¶29

" Petitioner and Respondent absent.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:35455 WP No. 20911 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Principal, Vidyavahini PU College is present and produced the documents noting that the petitioner No.1 was working as temporary lecturer and eh has furnished the information based on the official records maintained.

¶33

Sri.NB advocate for the respondent filed objections to the said documents submissting that the documents are not furnished as sought. Hence, pryas to reissue the summons to furnish the documents as for and to issue the summons to Headmaster, Vidyanikethan School, Tumakuru.

¶34

Sri. TRY advocate for the petitioners orally submitted that he has filed the necessary documents pertaiing to Vidyanikethan School and today the documents submitted by the Principal of Vidyavahini PU College are sufficient to dispose the issue.

¶35

As seen payslip, Appointment order, bank pass book details etc., are furnished by the petitioners as to Vidyanikethan School. Hence, issue summons calling for the above records do not arise. Further, as to the documents submitted today it has the reflection of the salary of the petitioner No.1 and it was submitted by the witness that he has furnished what are available in he records. Hence, submission made by the respondent lacks substance. Further this case is of the year 2020. Hence, posted the case for arguments on main petition finally by 25.06.2026."

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends that he has sought for documents from the Principal of Vidhyavahini PU College and also from Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School, Tumakuru. Inspite of service of summons to Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School, he has not turned up and not furnished relevant

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:35455 WP No. 20911 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

documents. As such he sought the Court for re-issuance of the summons to the Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School.

¶41

The Family Court observed that as other side

¶42

objected for issuance of summons to the Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School and also for the fact that already payslip, appointment order and bank pass book details are furnished by the respondents, again issuance of summons to the Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School does not arise.

¶43

But the learned counsel for the petitioner herein stated that respondent No.1 worked in both schools i.e. in Vidhyavahini PU College and also in Vidyanikethan School.

¶44

As such he sought for the said documents from the Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School and they are required for the proper disposal of the case.

¶45

Therefore, this Court finds it just and reasonable to direct the Family Court to re-issue summons to the Headmaster of Vidyanikethan School, Tumakuru for production of salary particulars of respondent No.1.

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:35455 WP No. 20911 of 2026

¶47

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

With these observations, the writ petition is

¶50

disposed of .

¶51

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶52