IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT PETITION NO. 10680 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

MRS. KAVITA SHIRALI W/O PALGUN R AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, GANAPA, BSK VI STAGE, 11^TH BLOCK, UTTARAHALLI, KENGERI MAIN ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA BUS STOP Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIG H BANGALORE -560 060 COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARATH S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

MR. PALGUN R., S/O J.N.RAMESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.8, GANAPA, BSK VI STAGE, 11^TH BLOCK, UTTARAHALLI, KENGERI MAIN ROAD, SRINIVASAPURA BUS STOP BANGALORE -560 060 …RESPONDENT THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED: 04.03.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON IA NO. 16 AND 17 BY THE HON’BLE IIIRD ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE IN MC.NO. 5122/2020.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition is filed by the respondent in M.C.No.5122/2020 against the order passed by the Family Court on I.A.Nos.16 and 17 filed under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall PW.1 for further cross-

examination.

3. The respondent herein has filed M.C.No.5122/2020 for the relief of divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It appears that respondent herein has also filed M.C.No.6738/2022 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both the matters are taken up together for disposal by the Family Court. It appears that on 20.02.2021, the petitioner herein had changed her advocate and another counsel appeared on her behalf filed vakalath with permission of the Court. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed I.A.Nos.16 and 17 to reopen the case and to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination of PW.1.

4. The Family Court in detail referred the proceedings of the case and it has also noted that about two years time was taken by respondent therein, to cross-examine PW.1. It appears that whenever there was change of advocate, applications were filed for cross-examination of the witness. As rightly noted by the Family Court, in the affidavit filed in support of the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, it is not disclosed as to what are the questions leftover for cross-examination. On the contrary, it is vaguely stated that "cross-examination of PW.1 was very weak. Therefore, further cross-examination is required." The matter was pending before the Family Court for about five years, but even the evidence of petitioner in MC.No.5122/2020 is not completed. It appears that there are no bonafide reasons in the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, it was rightly rejected.

5. The lengthy grounds of the writ petition are not sufficient for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court. It is nothing but abuse of process of Court, just to drag on the proceedings contrary to the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

6. For the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is rejected (ii) The Registry is directed to send certified copy of this order to the Family Court.

SD/-

(UMESH M ADIGA)

JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5