SRI DINESH vs SMT KAVYA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60650
WP No. 10197 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010213932025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 10197 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI.DINESH
S/O LATE. M.BALAKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO. 321/D, 1 STAGE,
5TH CROSS, GAYATHRIPURAM,
MYSURU- 570 001
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOVIND BHARATH M.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. KAVYA
W/O SRI. DINESH,
D/O SRI. NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 289, HIGH TENSION ROAD,
BELAVADI, BELAVADI POST
MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU – 570 016
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMON ORDERS DATED: 01.03.2025 ON I.AS
NO.6 AND 7 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY
JUDGE, MYSURU IN G AND WC NO. 58/2023 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60650
WP No. 10197 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010213932025
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed aggrieved by the orders
passed on IA.Nos.6 & 7 in G&WC.No.58/2003 dated 01.03.2025
by the II Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru, the
petitioner/father is before this court.
2. Both the parties are referred to as father and mother
for the sake of convenience.
3. It is the specific case of the father that he had filed
G&WC seeking custody of the child. In the said G & WC he has
filed IA.No.6 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and
I.A.No.7 filed under Section 151 of CPC for referring the
electronic documents to FSL, for proper identification and for
scientific analysis about the involvement of the mother in the
videos and to re-open the father’s evidence. It is the case of
the father that the mother is involved in illegal activities and
there is no safety and protection to the ward in the hands of
the mother. He has produced the pen drives, CDs, and
photographs to prove the involvement of the mother in
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60650
WP No. 10197 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010213932025
indecent acts. The said digital videos are being downloaded
from the websites. In the evidence, the mother had denied her
appearance in those videos. Hence, in order to establish the
same, father has filed the application and the family court
dismissed both the IAs., by order impugned.
4. While dismissing the application, the family court had
observed that when the person who is going through the videos
identify the person without hesitation and come to the
conclusion that both the persons are not one and the same,
then it is needless to refer the electronic evidence to the
scientific experts. If there are any similarity or there is doubtful
in identification of persons, then the question would arise to
refer the electronic evidence for scientific analysis. Therefore,
without any justifiable reasons, it is unwarranted to refer the
electronic device to the scientific expert opinion only on the
basis of the interest of the parties would not arise at all. The
contention taken by the father is nothing but the demoralizing
the character of the mother and also assassinating her
character and defaming her in the society by taking undue
advantage of videos which are uploaded in website. So, the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60650
WP No. 10197 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010213932025
said act of the father cannot be encouraged by referring the
said videos to the expert analysis when the photographs and
videos are not at all matching with the faces of respondent and
it appears both are different persons. Thereby even though the
mother had no objection to refer the videos to the scientific
expert, but it is not necessary to refer for scientific analysis.
The act done by the father in producing the said evidence is
itself an act of defaming the wife; therefore, the said act cannot
be encouraged, and, in the opinion of the court, there are no
reasonable and justifiable grounds to consider the father's
contention and refer the electronic evidence to scientific
analysis. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.
5. When the matter came up before the court, the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as the
matter is sensitive and the matter may be taken up in the
chambers and hence the matter is posted today in the
chamber.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/father
submits that the mother is involved in illegal acts which are
detrimental for the welfare of the child. The videographs where
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60650
WP No. 10197 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010213932025
the mother appears were placed before the court, and the court
had come to the conclusion that the person appearing in the
videos and the mother are not one and the same. It is the
submission of the learned counsel that they had sent the videos
to a private forensic lab for analysis. The private forensic lab
gave a report stating that the person appearing in the illegal
videos and the respondent/mother are one and the same, but it
was not placed before the court. It is submitted that when the
mother had no objection for sending the videos for scientific
analysis, the court ought to have allowed the application.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/mother
submits that the family court has rightly dismissed the
application. However, he does not deny the fact that the
mother had stated that she had no objection for sending the
digital videos for forensic examination. It is submitted that such
applications are filed only with an intention to defame and
harass the mother. The family court rightly considered and
dismissed the application, and there are no grounds to interfere
with the order impugned.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60650
WP No. 10197 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010213932025
8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. The father is making
grave allegations against the mother and has placed certain
videographs before the court. According to him, as per the
report he obtained from a private laboratory, the
respondent/mother and the person in the videos are one and
the same. This is a very important issue, where, on one hand,
the welfare of the child is at stake and, on the other hand, the
reputation of the woman is also at stake. If the mother has no
objection for sending the said videos for expert opinion, she
can come out of those allegations made by the father. If the
allegations made by the father are without any basis, the court
as well as the mother can take appropriate action. When there
is a scientific procedure to find out the truth, the court should
not take the task of comparing the faces and coming to the
conclusion that it is not one and the same.
9. In the considered opinion of the court, in the interest
of father, mother and child, sending these videos for expert
opinion would be appropriate and the suit has to re-opened for
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60650
WP No. 10197 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010213932025
petitioner’s evidence. In that view of the matter, this court is
passing the following:
ORDER
i. The order dated 01.03.2025 passed in
G&WC.No.58/2003 by the II Addl. Principal
set aside
Judge, Family Court, Mysuru is .
allowed
Accordingly, IA.Nos.6 and 7 are and
the petitioner’s evidence is re-opened, and the
electronic document is referred to the FSL.
Allowed.
ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is
iii. The Registry is directed to return the reports
placed in sealed covers before this court.
iv. Pending IAs., in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
TS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
*MR