The power to recall witnesses and reopen evidence is discretionary and should be exercised sparingly; the mere denial of documents by a witness during cross-examination does not automatically entitle a party to recall themselves, especially in long-pending matrimonial proceedings.

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE COMMON ORDER DATED 05.02.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU IN M.C. NO. 738/2015 CLUBBED WITH M.C. NO. 5326/2017, DISMISSING INTERIM APPLICATION NOS. 23 AND IN TURN ALLOW THE SAID INTERIM APPLICATION NOS.23 (ANNEXURE- K AND E) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner/husband challenging the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru (‘the Family Court’ for short) in M.C.No.738/2015, whereby I.A.Nos.23 to 26 filed by him which came to be rejected.

2. The petitioner herein is the husband and the respondent herein is the wife.

3. The brief facts of the case are that:-

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 22.08.2009 in accordance with Christian rites and customs. Out of the said wedlock, a female child was born on 12.06.2012.It is stated that matrimonial disputes arose between the parties, in pursuance of which the petitioner instituted proceedings in M.C.No.738/2015 before the Family Court seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent, on the other hand, instituted M.C.No.5326/2017 seeking dissolution of marriage. Both the matters are being tried by the Family Court.

4. The record further discloses that at an earlier point of time, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.28301/2024, and this Court, by order dated 14.11.2025, while considering the grievance of the petitioner with regard to production of certain documents relating to pecuniary aspects, permitted the petitioner to place such material on record in accordance with law and observed that appropriate inference could be drawn depending on the evidence adduced.

5. Thereafter, the proceedings before the Family Court continued and the evidence of the parties was recorded. It is not in dispute that the cross-examination of RW-1 (respondent herein) was concluded on 19.01.2026. During the course of such cross-examination, certain documents were shown to the witness, which came to be denied by her. Subsequent to closure of the cross-examination of RW-1, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos. 23 to 26 before the Family Court seeking recall of PW- 1 (himself) and for permission to further examine him for the purpose of marking the said documents which were denied by the respondent.

6. The Family Court, upon consideration of the said applications, by its order dated 05.02.2026, rejected the same, holding that no sufficient ground is made out to reopen the evidence at that stage. It is this order which is impugned in the present writ petition.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Family Court has committed a serious error in rejecting the applications. It is submitted that when the respondent has denied the documents during cross- examination on 19.01.2026, the petitioner ought to have been afforded an opportunity to recall himself and prove the documents in accordance with law. Further denial of such opportunity would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner, particularly in respect of the financial and pecuniary aspects involved in the dispute.

8. Learned counsel would also place reliance on the earlier order of this Court dated 14.11.2025 in W.P. No. 28301/2024 and submit that this Court had permitted the petitioner to place material on record, and therefore the Family Court ought to have adopted a liberal approach in allowing the applications.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would support the impugned order and contend that the proceedings are pending from the year 20