Petitioner-wife is knocking at the doors of Writ Court

for assailing the order dated 31.05.2022 whereby learned

V Additional Family Court Judge, Bengaluru, has negatived

her application in I.A.No.24 filed under Section 151 of CPC

seeking to reopen stage of the case there. A copy whereof

is at Annexure-A.

2.

The respondent-husband has entered Caveat

and his counsel vehemently opposes the petition making

submission

in

justification

of

the

impugned

order

contending that the MC case has been pending since more

than a decade and Apex Court has ruled that matters of this

kind should be disposed off at the earliest so that the

parties may reshape their lives, should there be dissolution

of their marriage. He also points out that the matter having

bee heard in the Court below, is now reserved for judgment

and therefore, in the light of law declared by the Apex Court

in K.K.VELUSWAMY vs N.PALANISAMY, AIR 2011 SC 479,

ordinarily applications of the kind are not maintainable at

3

this stage of the proceedings. So contending, he seeks

dismissal of the writ petition.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is

inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under

and for the following reasons:

a)

the lis between the parties does not relate to

just an apple cart but to their marital status; already a

decade is spent in the Court below is true; however, if one

more chance is given to the petitioner-wife to produce copy

of the subject sale deed by way of additional evidence in

support of her defence in the MC certainly heavens will not

fall down; no prejudice will be caused to the other side if

this is permitted to be done in a time bound manner and

reserving right to cross-examine the petitioner or the other

witnesses that may be called on her behalf.

b) The Apex Court in K.K.VELUSWAMY, supra has held

that ordinarily, at this stage, the applications for reopening

of the case are not entertained; however that was not a

cause arising under the Family Courts Act. It is apparent

4

from the provisions of the Act that the provisions of CPC

and Evidence Act are not applicable to the MC proceedings

stricto sensu. Therefore, the ratio of K.K.Velusamy cannot

be invoked especially when justice of the case warrants wife

being permitted to lead further evidence in terms of IAs.24

& 25. However, the rejection of I.A.26 cannot be part

faltered as rightly contended by learned counsel for the

respondents.

In

the

above

circumstances,

this

writ

petition

succeeds; impugned order is quashed. Petitioner's I.As 24 &

25 are allowed.

The Court below is requested to process the matter

accordingly within a period of six weeks.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS