IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

WRIT PETITION NO. 35757 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI GURURAJ JADHAV M D

S/O. SRI. M. DHARMAPAL RAO JHADAV,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

R/O NO.18-7-269-28, A2-10,

ROOM NO.10, BLOCK A2, POLICE LANE,

PANDESHAWARA, MANGALURU - 575 001

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ARUN NACHAPPA K.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SUNITHA N

D/O. SRI M. K. NAGARAJU RAO,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

R/AT NO.414, JP 1^ST MAIN ROAD,

BEHIND THE CLUB, ITI LAYOUT,

NEAR GOPALAN ARCADE, MYSURU ROAD,

Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 039

by MEGHA

MOHAN …RESPONDENT Location: HIG H THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE

COURT OF

KARNATAKA CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-I. SET ASIDE/QUASH

THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.08.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, IN CRL. MISC. NO. 353/2022, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 311 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE TO REOPEN THE STAGE FOR CROSS- EXAMINATION OF PW-1 (PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE- A AND G),

IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

Aggrieved by the order passed on 14.08.2025 in MC No.353/2022 by the learned IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had dismissed an application that is filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner is before this Court seeking to set aside the impugned order.

2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as learned Advocate was in the Kalaburagi, High Court on 07.07.2025, they could not cross-examine PW1 on that day, as such, the learned counsel filed an application to reopen the stage and recall the case for the cross-examination of PW1, but, the Court dismissed the petition without considering the same. Hence, the orders impugned needs to be set aside.

4. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the impugned order dated 14.08.2025. The Family Court observed that the petitioner, who is the respondent before the Family Court has filed an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking to recall the stage and reopen the case for the cross-examination of PW1. As per the order sheet it reveals that, the matter has been pending for the cross- examination of PW1 from 19.04.2024. The cross-examination of PW1 was taken as nil on 24.08.2024 and thereafter, the matter was posted for respondent evidence. On 21.11.2024, again the matter was recalled but it is not completed till 07.07.2025. On that day, due to the absence of the petitioner herein and his counsel further cross-examination was taken as nil on 22.07.2025. Subsequently, the petitioner was again absent and the counsel for the petitioner sought time for the evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., intends to recall PW1 for cross- examination on the ground that the respondent’s counsel was at the Kalaburagi High Court and could not appear on

07.07.2025.

5. The Family Court observes that the reasons that are stated by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Sufficient time has already been granted and no good grounds are made out to recall PW1. Hence, the application is dismissed.

6. This Court has perused the order passed by the Family Court. The Family Court had granted sufficient time to the petitioner to cross-examine PW1. In fact, on earlier occasions, the cross-examination of PW1 was closed as nil. Subsequently, the Court had accommodated the petitioner and reopened the case upon his application. A litigant who is not vigilant and does not pursue the matter diligently is not entitled for any relief from the Court. Therefore, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Family Co