Court dismissed the application to reopen evidence based on the husband's prior inaction and insufficient justification for not participating.

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.7 in M.C. No.

5546/2018, the husband is before this Court.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the husband had filed M.C. No. 5546/2018 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In that the wife had filed counter claim seeking divorce. The present I.A.No. 7 is filed to reopen the case from the stage of arguments to the stage of the petitioner's evidence. It is stated that, the petition was posted on 02.08.2024 for the evidence of the husband. Since their settlement proposal was going on he did not lead his evidence. However, the Court was pleased to close the evidence of the petitioner as nil on 12.09.2024 and the matter was posted to 28.02.2025 and then the wife led her evidence on 25.10.2024 and posted the petition on 7.12.2024 for cross examination of R.W.1-wife, and since the learned counsel did not go with the cross examination of the wife, the cross examination of the wife was taken as nil and posted the petition to 23.01.2025 and to 28.02.2025. It was stated that settlement efforts are made by the elders of both the families and hence he did not lead the evidence and also did not cross-examine the wife.

3. Thereafter, during the end of January 2025, the wife has finally refused to participate in the settlement, and hence the present application is filed by the husband and has sought to recall the order dated 02.08.2024 and also permit him to lead the evidence. The said application came to be dismissed by the Family Court. Being aggrieved, the husband is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-

husband has reiterated the grounds that are raised before the Court, and submits that, because the compromise talks are going on he has not participated in the proceedings and now in the month of February, 2025, when the wife finally refused to participate in the settlement, the husband has come up with this application and in the interest of justice this application needs to be allowed.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

wife submits that, the submission that the compromise talks are going on, is without any basis, and in fact, when the wife had filed the Domestic Violence case from 30.5.2024 till 11.7.2024 the husband has cross-examined the wife on different occasions, and this would clearly show that the submission that is made before the Court with regard to the compromise talks is not correct and when the husband is proceeding in the domestic violence case, what was the reason for him not to prosecute this matter, and the Court considering the lapses on the part of the husband had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the order on I.A.No.7 in M.C.No.5546/2018 passed by the V Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material placed on record.

7. The Court, while dismissing the application had observed that the petition seeking for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 12.10.2018, and on 14.1.2020, the wife had filed objections with the counter claim of divorce. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity the husband has not filed his objection to the counter claim. Hence, as per the order dated 27.9.2021, the Court had taken the objection to the counter claim as not filed and posted the matter for evidence on 7.12.2021. At the instance of the husband, the matter was adjourned for evidence. On 21.03.2022, the husband has filed application for visitation rights, and on 11.4.2022 the matter was ordered to be referred to Mediation. On 31.03.2023, the wife filed I.A.No.5 for maintenance. On 5.10.2023, I.A.Nos. 3 and 5 were allowed in part. On 26.03.2024, by imposing cost of Rs.500/- the Court was pleased to adjourn the matter for evidence of the husband and thereafter the matter was adjourned for evidence of the husband as a last chance and finally on 03.07.2