SHWETA D/O SHARABAYYA vs ANTARIKSH S/O RAMESH KOTE

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

RD
DATED THIS THE 23 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

WRIT PETITION NO. 200457 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)


BETWEEN:

SHWETA D/O SHARABAYYA,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SRVICE,
R/O H.NO.64/5, BHARATH RESIDENCY,
PRAPPAN AGRAHAR MAIN ROAD,
NEAR ATHULYA BAKERY,
ELECTRONIC CITY POST,
RD
3 CROSS, BENGALURU-560 100
AND ALSO RESIDING AT KALABURAGI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAMCHANDRA K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

ANTARIKSH S/O RAMESH KOTE,
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER,
R/O H.NO.8-937, HUMNABAD BASE ROAD,
NEAR AMBA BHAVANI TEMPLE,
AYYARWAI, KALABURAGI-585 103.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SURESH TENGLI &
SRI P.S MYAKERI, ADVOCATES)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
05.01.2023 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.XI, XII AND XIII FILED BY THE
PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.35/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE I.AS. VIDE ANNEXURE-A.










Digitally signed by
VARSHA N
RASALKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023


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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the
order dated 05.01.2023 passed on I.A. Nos.XI, XII
and XIII in O.S. No.35 of 2018 by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi (for short,
‘the Trial Court’).

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ
petition are as follows:

3. The petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual
injunction, restraining the respondent-defendant
from performing the marriage with any woman till
performance of a marriage of the petitioner with the
respondent, as per custom and usage in the
presence of elder family members.

4. The respondent appeared and filed a written
statement denying the averments made in the plaint

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023


and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is
not maintainable in the absence of declaration
declaring the status of the petitioner and respondent.

5. The petitioner filed an application to reopen the
matter on behalf of the petitioner's side to adduce
the evidence which is numbered as I.A. No.XI.

6. I.A. No.XII is filed to recall PW1 for the purpose of
marking the documents.

7. I.A. No.XIII to grant permission to produce the
electronic documents i.e., Pen-Drive and WhatsApp
messages to decide the controversial dispute
between the parties.

8. The respondent did not file objections to the said
applications.

9. The Trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, dismissed I.A. Nos.XI to XIII vide order
dated 05.01.2023.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023



10. The petitioner aggrieved by the order on I.A. Nos.XI
to XIII, filed this petition.

11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
trial Court has rejected the applications solely on the
ground that the petitioner has not produced the
documents earlier and also the Certificate under
Section 65-B(a) of the Indian Evidence Act has not
been produced. He submits that the provisions of
Section 65-B do not apply to the proceedings under
the Family Courts Act. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to allow the writ petition.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss
the writ petition.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023



14. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.

15. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has filed a
suit for perpetual injunction restraining the
respondent from performing the marriage with any
other woman till the performance of her marriage
with him as per the customs and usage of the
respondent in the presence of elder family members,
be passed.

16. The respondent filed a written statement denying the
relationship between the petitioner and respondent
and also contended that mere suit for perpetual
injunction without seeking a relief of declaration of
status is not maintainable.

17. The trial is at the stage when the petitioner and
respondent have led evidence and the matter was
posted for argument. At that time, the petitioner filed
an application I.A. No.XI to reopen the matter on

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023


behalf of the petitioner’s side and to permit her to
adduce evidence and mark the documents.

18. In support of the application, the petitioner has filed
an affidavit stating that due to oversight, some
documents could not be marked on behalf of the
petitioner’s side and those documents are already on
record and further, the petitioner filed an application
in I.A. No.XII to recall PW1 for the purpose of
marking the documents to decide the real
controversy between the parties; The petitioner has
filed I.A. No.XIII to grant permission to produce the
electronic documents i.e., pen-drive and Whatsapp
messages.

19. The Trial Court rejected the applications on the
ground that the petitioner has not produced the
Certificate under Section 65-B(a) of the Indian
Evidence Act.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023



20. Admittedly, the provisions of Section 65-B of the
Evidence Act do not apply to the proceedings under
the Family Courts Act, as the proceedings under the
Family Courts Act are summary in nature. As such,
production of a Certificate being procedural in
nature, same can be relaxed by the Court under
Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Singh
1
and others v. Col. Ram Singh , has observed that
it will be wrong to deny to the law of evidence
advantages to be gained by new techniques and new
devices, provided the accuracy of the recording can
be proved. It was further observed that, such
evidence should always be regarded with some
caution and assessed in the light of all the
circumstances of each case.

1
AIR 1986 SC 3 : 1985 Supplement SCC 611

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023



22. Further, a Division Bench of this Court had an
occasion to consider the similar issue in the case of
2
Smt.K.C. Saritha v. A.N. Vijay Kumar . The
Division Bench, placing reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tukaram S.
3
Dighole v. Manikrao Shivaji Kokate , has held
that, new techniques and devices are order of the
day and though such devices are susceptible to
tampering, no exhaustive rule could be laid down by
which admission of such evidence may be judged.

23. The Division Bench also relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Muddasani
4
Venkata Narsaiah v. Muddasani Sarojana ,
wherein it has been held that in any case, it is a fit
case for relaxing the procedural requirement
contained in Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act.

2
In MFA No.23601 of 2013(FC) decided on 25.10.2019
3

(2010) 4 SCC 329
4
( 2016) 12 SCC 288

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023



24. In the instant case, the Trial Court without
considering the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble
supra,
Apex Court, in the cases referred has rejected
the applications solely on the ground that the
certificate under Section 65-B(4) has not been
produced.

25. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order
passed by the Trial Court is in violation of the
judgments referred supra, as such , I am inclined to
interfere with the impugned order.

26. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned Order dated
05.01.2023 passed on I.A.
Nos.XI to XIII in O.S. No.135 of
2018 by the Trial Court is set
aside ;

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:9462
WP No. 200457 of 2023


CNR: KAHC030012112023


(iii) Consequently, the applications
I.A. Nos.XI to XIII are allowed,
as prayed for, subject to
payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-
payable by the petitioner to the
respondent on the next date of
hearing before the Trial Court.


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE

RK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1