Writ Petition No. 1586 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1586 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT.RANJANA JOSHI W/O SHRI PRASHANTH JOSHI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO. 62, 2ND FLOOR BT STREET BENGALURU 560 053 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHITH V.R., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.UDITA RAMESH., ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI.PRASHANTH JOSHI S/O MADAN MOHAN JOSHI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO. 901, A BLOCK, 9TH FLOOR GINA SHALOM, OLD MADRAS ROAD HV RESIDENCE KRISHNARAJPURA BENGALURU 560 053 (BY SRI. H.MANJUNATH.,ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 13.12.2024 ALLOWING I.A.NO. 13(ANNX-K) AND SO ALSO REJECTION OF I.A NOS. 14 AND 15 VIDE ORDER DTD. 09.01.2025 (ANNX-F) IN M.C.NO. 3787 OF 2018 C/W M.C.NO. 1890 OF 2024 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL FAMILY JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU. Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER Heard
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel - Sri Rohit V.R. for the petitioner/wife and learned counsel - Sri H. Manjunath for the respondent/husband. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner/wife seeking to set aside the order dated 13.12.2024 allowing I.A. No.13 vide Annexure-K and so also the order dated 9.1.2025 dismissing I.A. Nos.14 & 15 in M.C. No.3787/2018 c/w M.C. No.1890/2024 vide Annexure-F. 3. The petitioner/wife has instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C. No.1890/2024 on 20.3.2024. Prior to that, respondent/husband has instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce in M.C. No.3787/2018. The petitioner/wife has contested the matter as respondent in the said divorce petition. After adducing evidence of the petitioner/wife in the divorce petition, she was - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 fully cross-examined and thereafter the evidence of the respondent/husband was adduced and he was partly cross- examined. Thereafter, the divorce petition and the petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights were clubbed together on 1.8.2024 and they were tried together. 4. When things stood thus, on 13.12.2024, the petitioner/wife filed an application - I.A. No.13 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen and recall PW.1 for further cross- examination in M.C. No.3787/2018 c/w M.C. No.1890/2024. The said application was allowed by the Family Court and an order came to be passed permitting the petitioner/wife to cross-examine PW.1 restricting only to M.C. No.1890/2024 and the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 on 9.1.2025, on which date instead of cross-examining PW.1, petitioner/wife filed I.A. Nos.14 and 15 under Section 151 of CPC and under Order - XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking to strike off the evidence of the respondent/husband led in M.C. No.1890/2024 and also to review the order dated 13.12.2024 and permit cross-examination of PW.1 in M.C. No.3787/2018. The Family Court observed that there was no purpose in filing I.A. No.15 by the petitioner/wife as the Court - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 has permitted the petitioner/wife to cross-examine the respondent/husband. Instead of cross-examination of PW.1, the petitioner/wife has sought for striking of evidence and accordingly the said application came to be rejected and posted the matter for arguments, which is questioned before this Court. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner/wife that the Family Court while allowing I.A. No.13 has directed that the cross-examination of PW.1 shall be restricted only to M.C. No.1890/2024 without appreciating that the respondent/husband has not led any evidence in that case and there is no evidence to cross-examine the respondent/husband. 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent/husband vehemently contends that from 25.3.2022 till the date of passing the impugned order, more than seven opportunities were granted for cross-examining PW.1 and infact PW.1 has been exhaustively cross-examined and the present application - I.A. No.13 is filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 7. Learned counsel relies upon the order dated 24th April 2024 passed in Writ Petition No.10472 of 2024, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Family Court to dispose of the divorce petition itself within six months, which period also expired and he contends that the petitioner/wife is unnecessarily protracting and prolonging the matter. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner/wife and learned counsel for the respondent/husband, it is seen that the petitioner/wife has instituted a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for restitution of conjugal rights in M.C. No.1890/2024 and prior to that the respondent/husband has instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce and the petitioner/wife has exhaustively cross-examined respondent/ husband in M.C. No.3787/2018 and also adduced her evidence as RW.1. By the impugned order dated 13.12.2024, the Family Court allowed I.A. No.13 filed by the petitioner/wife permitting her to cross-examine the respondent/husband restricting only to the petition in M.C. No.1890/2024, which is instituted for restitution of conjugal rights. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 9. At this stage, it is relevant to state that when there are two petitions filed by the rival parties under different provisions of law, it is not necessary that in both the cases evidence has to be filed by each of the parties and in such a situation, one matter will be taken up as lead petition, in which one party shall lead evidence and other party cross-examine him and is treated as respondent. Therefore, question of filing a separate evidence or taking a plea that there is no evidence led by the respondent/husband in M.C. No.1890/2024 would not arise and it is not a sustainable submission. In fact, the Family Court permitted the petitioner/wife to cross-examine PW.1 limiting only to M.C. No.1890/2024, as exhaustive cross-examination of PW.1 has already been conducted in M.C. No.3787/2018 before clubbing of both the petitions. 10. Under the circumstances, I do not find any cogent reason to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2024 on I.A. No.13 and same is sustained. 11. Coming to the next aspect, the petitioner/wife has filed I.A. Nos.14 and 15 seeking to strike of the evidence of the respondent/husband in M.C. No.1890/2024 and also to review - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 the order dated 13.12.2024, which have been rightly dismissed by the Family Court. Infact, today, this Court has already affirmed the order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the Family Court on I.A. No.13. I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to interfere with the said order. 12. Under the circumstances, I do not find any cogent reason to entertain the present writ petition filed by the petitioner/wife. In view of the Family Court having allowed the I.A. No.13 vide order dated 13.12.2024, the petitioner/wife is permitted to cross-examine the respondent/husband limiting only to M.C. No.1890/2024 as exhaustive cross-examination has already been conducted in M.C. No.3787/2018 before clubbing of the matters - M.C. No.3787/2018 and M.C. No.1890/2024. 13. Accordingly, I pass the following:
Decision
O R D E R The writ petition is disposed of. The Family Court shall proceed further in the matter and permit the petitioner/wife to cross-examine the respondent/ husband limiting only to M.C. i) ii) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2820 WP No. 1586 of 2025 No.1890/2024 and the cross-examination shall be completed within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence, if required. Since the Family Court has adjourned the matter to 23rd January 2025, the parties shall appear before the Family Court on the said day. iii) iv) v) In the event, the Family Court has not passed orders on I.A. filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the same shall be considered alongwith the main and suitable orders be passed on the said application. vi) The Family Court shall pass a final order within two months from the date of completion of cross- examination of the respondent/husband. vii) The Family Court is at liberty to impose exemplary costs on either of the parties for unnecessary adjournments or protraction of the proceedings. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1