ORDER : Chillakur Sumalatha, J. Heard Sri.Leeladhar.H.P, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three writ petitions and Sri.Lethif.B, learned counsel for the respondent in all the three writ petitions. 2. Parties to all the three writ petitions are common. 3. The matrix of proceedings as could be perceived on hearing both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the relevant material brought on record is that the first petitioner Smt.Tabasumm Fathima is the wife and the second petitioner Ms.Iqraa Imtiyaz Khan is the daughter of the respondent Dr.Imtiyaz Mohammed Khan. The petitioners filed a petition invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance. During the course of proceedings the petitioners moved three interlocutory applications, one petition under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking the Court to summon the required documents, second petition under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act seeking permission to produce electronic evidence and the third under Section 311 Cr.P.C seeking the Court to recall Pw.1 for further evidence. The applications filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C and under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act were dismissed through common order dated 21.01.2022. The application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C also stood dismissed on the same day however, by a separate order. Aggrieved by those orders, these three writ petitions came before this Court. 4. Making his submission with regard to the merits of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the respondent. As the respondent was ill-treating and harassing the petitioners and as they were ultimately thrown out of the marital home, they started residing separately. They were left with no livelihood and therefore, they filed petition for grant of maintenance. The respondent is a doctor by profession. The respondent after retiring from Government service, is maintaining and managing two clinics. He earns lot of amount. He did not spend any amount for proper welfare of the second respondent. Though the Court granted interim maintenance, the respondent did not pay the same properly. Huge arrears are pending. To establish the earnings of the respondent, his assets, his attitude and habits, the petitioners' intend to adduce evidence documentary and electronic. For producing such evidence, they moved three interlocutory applications. Though the Court granted interim maintenance, the respondent did not pay the same properly. Huge arrears are pending. To establish the earnings of the respondent, his assets, his attitude and habits, the petitioners' intend to adduce evidence documentary and electronic. For producing such evidence, they moved three interlocutory applications. But without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and the need on the part of the petitioners to adduce such evidence, the trial Court hastily and without valid reasons dismissed all those interlocutory applications and thus left with no other option the petitioners approached this Court through these writ petitions. Learned counsel thereby seeks to allow the writ petitions and thereby to give an opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence which is required for establishing their stand. 5. Vehemently opposing the submission thus made, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners filed petition for grant of maintenance in the year 2018. It took long period of 4 years to bring the matter for disposal. When the matter was posted by the trial Court for orders, the petitioners moved these 3 interlocutory applications. Learned counsel submits that there are no valid reasons for allowing those three interlocutory applications. In case the petitioners wanted to adduce such evidence, they should have moved those applications and adduce evidence at the earliest, but they did not do so. Thus, the trial Court rightly dismissed all the three interlocutory applications and hence, these three writ petitions are also liable to be dismissed. 6. In reply to the submission thus made, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent failed to file his statement of assets and liabilities as soon as he received the summons. Suppressing his earnings, financial status and assets he gave false declaration and his declaration of assets and liabilities was filed on 06.01.2022. After looking at the contents of the statement filed by the respondent declaring his assets and liabilities and as the said statement is filled with incorrect particulars, the petitioners on the advice of their counsel filed separate applications on 18.01.2022 seeking the Court to permit them to adduce additional evidence. Thus there is no delay on part of the petitioners in moving the three interlocutory applications. Learned counsel further submits that the first petitioner is a woman obligated to look after the second petitioner who is a college going girl. Thus there is no delay on part of the petitioners in moving the three interlocutory applications. Learned counsel further submits that the first petitioner is a woman obligated to look after the second petitioner who is a college going girl. The first petitioner who is not receiving any financial assistance from the respondent is burdened to take care of the educational expenses of the second petitioner and also to look after their livelihood. In those circumstances, the petitioners could not collect all the documents at the earliest. The primary reason for moving those three interlocutory applications by the petitioners is the false declaration given by the respondent regarding his assets and liabilities and that apart there is no delay in filing the three interlocutory applications from the date of statement of assets and liabilities declaration given by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent cannot contend that there is delay on the part of the petitioners in moving these interlocutory applications. 7. Giving reply to the said reply given by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent states that the first petitioner did not sign in the application filed under Section 311 of Cr.P.C and thus there is technical irregularity in moving the said application. 8. A perusal of impugned orders reveals that the trial Court dismissed those interlocutory applications mainly on three grounds. Firstly, that the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C are summary in nature. Secondly, that the case is of the year 2018 and the applications are filed belatedly and thirdly, the applications are vague and lack material facts. 9. Here is a case where the wife and the child of the respondent seeks maintenance for their livelihood which is denied by the respondent and where the wife and child intends to establish their entitlement by adducing proper evidence. Undoubtedly when the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C was filed in the year 2018, the interlocutory applications were filed in the year 2022. However, there is no denial of the fact that the statement of assets and liabilities was submitted by the respondent to the Court on 06.01.2022. It is not the case of the respondent that after submitting his statement of assets and liabilities the petitioners took much time for filing these petitions to adduce further evidence. That apart the documents which the petitioners intend to produce are of the years 2019, 2021 and 2022. It is not the case of the respondent that after submitting his statement of assets and liabilities the petitioners took much time for filing these petitions to adduce further evidence. That apart the documents which the petitioners intend to produce are of the years 2019, 2021 and 2022. 10. No doubt, Courts are required to dispose of the matters expeditiously. Also the petitions filed either under Section 125 of Cr.P.C or under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act are required to be attended to and relief is required to be granted as soon as possible. However, only when proper evidence is brought on record, cases can be disposed of in a fair manner and justice can be done to the litigant public. The case on hand requires an opportunity to be given to the petitioners to adduce the evidence which they intend to adduce and which is legally admissible so that they can establish their claim. Admittedly, no prejudice will be caused to the respondent as he will be given an opportunity to deny the genuineness of the evidence adduced by the petitioners and to establish his stand on the evidence if any adduced by the petitioners. 11. Having considered the material that is brought on record and upon hearing both the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that if the petitioners are not granted an opportunity to adduce evidence, there may be possibility of the Court not giving a fair disposal and the petitioners lacking opportunity to establish their stand. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court ought to have entertained those three interlocutory applications and should have accorded an opportunity to the petitioners to adduce the evidence which they intended to. Therefore, this Court ultimately holds that the orders passed by the trial Court are required to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) All the three writ petitions are allowed. (ii) The orders passed by the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Mysuru in Crl.Misc.No.581/2018 on the interlocutory applications filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C, Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 311 Cr.P.C are set aside. Consequently, all the three interlocutory applications are allowed. (iii) However, admissibility of evidence, oral documentary and electronic should be in accordance with the mandate of law and the rules governing the field. Consequently, all the three interlocutory applications are allowed. (iii) However, admissibility of evidence, oral documentary and electronic should be in accordance with the mandate of law and the rules governing the field. (iv) On production of admissible evidence, an opportunity be given to the respondent to adduce his evidence if any and also to cross examine the witnesses if any produced by the petitioners. (v) Both the parties to appear before the trial Court on 28.01.2026. (vi) No further notice is required to be issued to parties by the trial Court.