Smt Kavya N vs Mahesh S
2022 Latest Caselaw 1770 Kant

                               1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

         WRIT PETITION NO.24423 OF 2021 (GM - FC)

BETWEEN:
SMT.KAVYA N.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
W/O MAHESH S.,
D/O NAGAPPA,
R/AT D.NO.656, DODDAKANYA VILLAGE,
JAYA PURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK,
MYSURU - 570 008.
                                            ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.ARAFAT, ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI.SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)


AND:

MAHESH S,
S/O SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT #121, "D" BLOCK,
25TH CROSS, J.P.NAGAR,
MYSORE - 570 008.
                                           ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2021 ON IA U/S 65B OF
INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT FILED IN M.C.NO.456/2021 ON THE FILE
OF II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MYSORE, AS PER
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,

    THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                 2

                            ORDER

Petitioner, an estranged spouse is knocking at the doors

of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 02.12.2021

whereby respondent-husband's application filed u/s 65(B) of

the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the pending M.C.

No.456/2021 having been favoured, he is permitted to

produce electronic documents by way of evidentiary material.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

argues that the impugned order which permits loading of the

electronic evidence to the record is made contrary to the

decision of the Apex Court in ARJUN PANDITRAO

KHOTKAR Vs. KALIASH KISHAN RAO GORATYAL, (2020) 7

SCC 1. However, what part of the order offends the principles

laid down in the said judgment is not forthcoming despite

long submissions; be that as it may.

3. The contention of the petitioner that the subject

evidentiary material does not have any probative force, is bit

difficult to consider in this writ petition. When the case in the

Court below is taken up for hearing, it is open to the

petitioner to show that the said evidence is unworthy of

consideration by pointing out reasons therefor. What weight

is to be attached to the evidence on record is in the domain of

the learned trial judge. If he errs and petitioner is put to

injustice thereby, remedy is always available by way of appeal

or otherwise when the matter is disposed off.

With the above observations, this writ petition is

disposed off, all contentions having been kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS