SHRI TIPPESH URF TILAK v. SMT. SAVITHA

SHRI TIPPESH URF TILAK S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HUNSIKATTI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNTANT, R/O. KRISHNA SIDDI HOUSE, #14, SIDDI PLOT, TELGAR ONI, MURGAMATH, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD-580003. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA RAJSHEKAR SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SAVITHA W/O. TIPPESH HUNSIKATTI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SOMESHWAR NAGAR, NEKARNAGAR, HALLE HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 IN M.C.NO.189/2022, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-E; ORDER ON I.A.NO.10 AND 11 CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.10 FILED U/S-151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND I.A.NO.11 FILED - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7911 WP No. 102525 of 2023 C/W WP No. 102532 of 2023 U/O-18 RULE 17 R/W SEC-151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. IN WP NO.102532 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SHRI TIPPESH URF TILAK S/O. FAKKIRAPPA HUNSIKATTI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: ACCOUNTANT, R/O. KRISHNA SIDDI HOUSE, #14, SIDDI PLOT, TELGAR ONI, MURGAMATH, SAVADATTI ROAD, DHARWAD-580003. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. POOJA RAJSHEKAR SAVADATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. SAVITHA W/O. TIPPESH HUNSIKATTI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SOMESHWAR NAGAR, NEKARNAGAR, HALLE HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI-580029. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OR ISSUE AN ORDER IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22/02/2023 IN CRL.MISC.NO.382/2021, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT HUBBALLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-E; CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A.NO.07 FILED U/S-151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND I.A.NO.08 FILED U/O-18 RULE 17 R/W SEC-151 OF CPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7911 WP No. 102525 of 2023 C/W WP No. 102532 of 2023 These petitions ORDER petitioner-husband assailing the order passed by the Family Court on the applications filed in I.A.Nos.10 and 11 in M.C.No.189/2022 and applications filed in I.A.Nos.7 and 8 in Crl. Misc. No.382/2021.

Respondent-wife filed restitution petition in M.C.No.189/2022 and also sought maintenance Crl. Misc. No.382/2021. The present petitioner-husband filed applications in both the proceedings requesting the court to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 and direct the petitioner- husband to cross-examine them. The court below taking note of the conduct of the petitioner-husband was of the view that the petitioner-husband is not serious contesting the proceedings. Though similar applications were allowed on an earlier occasion, the petitioner- husband failed to utilize the said opportunity. Therefore, the court below was not inclined to allow the applications. Consequently, the applications in both - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:7911 WP No. 102525 of 2023 C/W WP No. 102532 of 2023 proceedings are rejected. These two orders are challenged by filing two separate writ petitions.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- husband and learned counsel for respondent-wife.

Though this court would find that there is some laxness on the part of the petitioner-husband, however, to meet the ends of justice, this court is of the view that petitioner-husband deserves one more final opportunity. This court has also taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner-husband has paid cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent-wife. However, this court is of the view that the petitioner-husband needs to be put to certain terms and therefore, this court is compelled to impose cost on the petitioner-husband for having failed to cross-examine the respondent-wife and the witnesses examined by the respondent-wife.