- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 7918 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI D.B.UMASHANKAR S/O.D.P.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT DODDAPETE, 9TH BLOCK INFRONT OF LADIES HOSTEL MADHUGIRI TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132 …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.H.S.NAGARATHNA @ RAMYA W/O.D.B.UMASHANKAR D/O.S.M.SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 2. KHUSHI U. D/O.D.B.UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS MINOR REP. BY N/G H.S.NAGARATHNA @ RAMYA PETITIONER NO.1 BOTH ARE R/AT YOGISH BUILDING CHIKKAVEERAYYANAPALYA SIRA GATE TUMAKURU-572 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.PC. IN C.MIS.NO.1/2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the husband aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed on IA.No.V under Section 311 of Cr.PC. in C.Mis.1/2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the application by imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- against the husband. 2. It is the vehement contention of Sri M.B.Chandra Chooda, learned counsel for petitioner-husband that the wife had preferred a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC. seeking maintenance. In the said proceedings, the husband filed an application in IA.No.V seeking to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination, when the matter was set down for arguments of the husband. It is - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025 further contended that the counsel for husband before the Family Court was undergoing treatment namely, Chemotherapy as he was suffering from Cancer and he was admitted to the Hospital, due to which, counsel for husband could not cross-examine PW.1. Hence, the application which was filed to recall PW.1 for cross- examination ought not to have been rejected by learned Judge of the Family Court. This aspect having not been considered, he submits that an opportunity be given to the husband to cross-examine PW.1 and consequently, allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court. 3. Per contra, Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for respondent-wife contends that the husband had fully cross-examined PW.1 and in fact, he filed an application in IA.No.IV for recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination, when the matter was posted for arguments by closing the evidence of both parties, which was allowed by imposing cost of Rs.2,000/-. However, instead of paying the cost - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025 and cross-examining PW.1, the husband sought time and thereby, left with no other alternative, the learned Judge of the Family Court proceeded further in the matter by taking the cross-examination of PW.1 as 'Nil' and posted the matter for addressing the arguments on the main. 3.1 Learned counsel further contends that counsel for wife argued the matter and the case came to be posted for arguments of the husband, on which day, the husband filed one more application in IA.No.V seeking to recall PW.1 for cross-examination. Therefore, learned counsel for wife submits that when opportunities were given to the husband to cross examine PW.1, the same was not utilised and deliberately, it was protracted with an intention to cause delay, consequently, harassment to the wife. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner- husband and learned counsel for respondent-wife. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025 5. The facts of the case with regard to the husband having filed IA.No.V when the matter was set down for arguments, is not in dispute. By virtue of the said application, apparently, the husband wants to cross- examine PW.1. The husband could not cross-examine PW.1 on the designated day is due to his counsel suffering from Cancer and undergoing Chemotherapy treatment and a document to that effect is placed before this Court vide Annexure-E, which apparently, is not disputed. 6. It is also not in dispute that on 07.02.2025, when the case was posted for further cross-examination, the husband neither paid costs nor proceeded with further cross-examination of PW.1 and therefore, the Family Court has taken further cross-examination of PW.1 as 'Nil'. Considering the fact that the counsel for husband was suffering from cancer and undergoing chemotherapy treatment, an opportunity requires to be granted to the husband to cross-examine PW.1 as the reasons assigned are bona fide and genuine for the absence. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025 7. Under the circumstances, I pass the following: ORDER i) This petition is allowed; ii) The order dated 04.03.2025 passed on IA.No.V filed under Section 311 of Cr.PC. in C.Mis.No.1/2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the application in IA.No.5 is allowed; iii) The petitioner-husband is permitted to cross- examine PW.1 before the Family Court at Tumakuru; iv) The petitioner-husband shall conclude cross- examination of PW.1 on or before 04.04.2025, without taking any further adjournments. Thereafter, the Family Court shall proceed further in accordance with law and dispose off the matter by giving reasonable opportunities to the parties. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE LB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40