- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16532 WP No. 9570 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9570 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: 1. PRASHANT JOSHI, SON OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.901, A BLOCK, 9TH FLOOR, GINA SHALOM, OLD MADARS ROAD, HV RESIDENCE KRISHNARAJAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RANJANA JOSHI, WIFE OF SHRI PRASHANTH JOSHI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.62, 2ND FLOOR, BT STREET, BENGALURU - 560 053. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI VARUN, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2025 ALLOWING INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17 IN M.C.NO.3787/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VI ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17 (ANNEXURE-J) AND ETC. Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16532 WP No. 9570 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2025 passed in M.C.No.3787/2018 by VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 2. The parties are referred to as the husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioner/husband has filed a petition for divorce and the respondent/wife had filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights. Earlier, two orders were passed by this Court where there was a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. 4. It is submitted that earlier on 09.01.2025, there was an order that came to be passed, wherein the Court observed that the respondent/wife had pressed the IA filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, 'the Act') seeking maintenance pendente lite and the said IA had been - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16532 WP No. 9570 of 2025 filed on 12.07.2023, but thereafter they did not press the I.A. In this case, there is direction of this Court for early disposal of the case. Now, the case is at the fag end. So, the parties are directed to proceed with the case on merits. The impugned order is passed wherein it is observed that in this case as permanent alimony has been claimed, it is necessary to subject, PW.1 for cross-examination on the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities. Hence, IA Nos. 17 and 18 are allowed. The respondent is directed to cross-examine PW.1 without fail on the next date of hearing, and for further cross- examination of PW.1, the matter was directed to be listed on 28.03.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/husband submits that on one pretext or the other, the wife is dragging the matter and further, there is no application for permanent alimony. In fact, there is an application filed under Section 24 of the Act seeking interim maintenance. The Family Court in the earlier order has observed that the Court is going to proceed with the main case. But, the impugned order is passed contrary to the directions of this Court and also the earlier orders of the Family Court. He further submits that the cross-examination of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16532 WP No. 9570 of 2025 the witnesses on the assets and liabilities on an interim application for maintenance no such procedure is contemplate anywhere. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife submits that in fact, when the matter was posted on 28.03.2025, PW.1 had not appeared before the Court for further cross-examination. It is submitted that when the husband had filed the statement of assets and liabilities at the fag end, the wife has no other opportunity, but to file this application seeking further cross-examination and the Trial Court had rightly passed the order and there are no grounds to interfere. 7. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. 8. The matrimonial case is of the year 2018. There are repeated orders by this Court for disposing of the matter as expeditiously as possible. This Court is not able to understand as to how the order was passed by the Trial Court, when order was passed on 09.01.2025 observing that wife is not pressing on IA filed under Section 24 of the Act now, the present order, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16532 WP No. 9570 of 2025 is passed observing that there is an application for permanent alimony, which is factually incorrect and there is no such application filed for permanent alimony. 9. In the light of the above discussions, this Court is passed the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 21.03.2025 passed in M.C.No.3787/2018 by VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set aside. iii) The Family Court as per the time-line fixed by this Court earlier shall expeditiously dispose off the matter. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE CPN CT-SG