Sri Ravindra M v. Sandya Kumari

ORDER DATED 15/04/2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, UDUPI IN IA NO. 19 ANNEXURE - A IN MC NO. 113/2024.

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, 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 order dated 15.04.2026 passed in I.A.No.19 in MC No.113/2024 by the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Udupi, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the application filed by the husband seeking to summon the complete medical records, case sheets, prescriptions, Admission Register, discharge summary and Psychiatric Evaluation reports of the respondent from A.V Baliga Memorial Hospital, Udupi. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

¶2The Family Court while dismissing the applications has observed that the petitioner had filed I.A.No.13 and sought to summon the medical records, case sheets, discharge summary etc., of the respondent from Dr. A.V. Baliga Memorial Hospital, Udupi. After hearing both sides, the said application was dismissed on merits. Once again the petitioner has filed the very same application. It appears that the petitioner is

trying to drag on the proceedings. Inspite of rejection on I.A.No.13, the petitioner has sought for summoning the documents alleged as pertaining to the respondent. There are no merits in the application and accordingly dismissed the application.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife has not produced medical records, case sheets, discharge summary etc., of the respondent from Dr. A.V. Baliga Memorial Hospital, Udupi. The Family Court, in a mechanical manner, has rejected the application without proper appreciation, and the Family Court ought to have allowed the application.

¶4Learned counsel for the respondent submits that when an application of this nature was filed in I.A.No.13, the Family Court passed an order that is not questioned. As rightly observed by the Family Court, he is filing applications one after the other and dragging on the matter.

¶5Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. The husband earlier filed an application, I.A. No.13, seeking the very same relief. That came

to be dismissed. Now it is the contention of the counsel for the husband by elaborately stating all the reasons filed in this application and the Court ought to have considered the same. When a similar application is filed and the court has refused to entertain the same, the husband has to question the said order, and he cannot file another application merely because he has elaborately explained why that application needs to be allowed. In the light of the dismissal of IA No. 13, this application cannot be entertained by the Court. In that view of the matter, this Court do not find any reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. Pending IAs., if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE

PKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0 AK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17040 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI RAVINDRA M., S/O LATE PARAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O HALEPETE, KANTAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571 107 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANIL R., ADVOCATE) AND: SANDYA KUMARI W/O SRI. RAVINDRA M., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DOOR NO. 5-124B3, VASUKI NAGAR, PUTTUR VILLAGE, SANTEKATTE POST, UDUPI-576 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SHASHANK C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.VENUGOPALA M.S., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED