- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1925 WP No. 27876 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 27876 OF 2024 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHASHIKALA D.S., W/O RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT BALAGUNDA VILLAGE, SOMVARPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKASH B SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. A.R. RAGHAVENDRA SWAMY S/O LATE ANDANAIAH. N.S., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, (HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER) R/AT NO. 539, SRIGANDHADAKAVAL HOUSE, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, R.H.C.S LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 091 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA V., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOP RECORDS IN THE V ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT, AT BENGALURU IN M.C. NO. 2701/2021 IN RELATION TO THE ORDER DATED 09/07/2024 ON I.A NO.4 AND I.A NO.5 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1925 WP No. 27876 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner-wife who is the respondent in the divorce proceedings in M.C.No.2701/2021 initiated by the respondent-husband. During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, applications in I.A.Nos.4 and 5 dated 23.05.2023 came to be filed under Section 151 and under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC respectively, to re-open and re-call the case and permit the petitioner-wife to participate in the divorce proceedings which was posted for judgment. The said applications though not contested by filing objections, same came to be rejected by the Family Court by the impugned order. 2. In the application filed before the Family Court at para 3 of the said affidavit the petitioner-wife has stated that she was convinced by the counsel appearing for the respondent that, respondent-husband would withdraw the main petition and they could amicably live together as husband and wife. Due to which, petitioner-wife stayed with the respondent- husband in the matrimonial home resuming matrimonial relationship for nearly four months and thereafter went to her parents house and when she returned, respondent-husband - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1925 WP No. 27876 of 2024 had vacated the house and thereafter did not respond to the several calls made by her. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-wife that at the instance of the respondent-husband she turned hostile in the crime prosecution filed by her, which was eventually closed with an intention to join husband at his request and continued marital relationship in the matrimonial home. But thereafter, husband has vacated the house and refused receiving the calls made by the petitioner-wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife contends that she was under the impression that respondent-husband would withdraw the petition, as they were living amicably together even after the institution of the divorce petition. Later she had realized that divorce petition was continued by the respondent-husband with malafide intention and after realizing that petition is reserved for judgment, she filed the applications for re-calling the said order and re-open the case and permit her to contest the matter, which has been rejected by the Family Court by the impugned order and therefore, he contends that the petition be allowed and consequently, applications be allowed and the petitioner-wife be permitted to contest the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1925 WP No. 27876 of 2024 matter by providing opportunity to defend the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife also submits that she is willing to live together amicably with respondent-husband. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-husband contends that in the applications filed there is no truth in the averments made by the petitioner-wife and disputes that petitioner-wife residing with the respondent- husband pursuant to filing of divorce petition and contends that she has protracted the matter and has not bothered to participate in the proceedings, despite several opportunities having been granted by the Family Court and though was aware of the proceedings, has not filed objections to the main petition. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent it is seen that after filing the petition for engaging the counsel, objections to the main petition was not filed. Petitioner has recorded evidence and got marked Exs.P.1 to P6. Respondent has not appeared before the Court when the matter was posted for judgment on 23.05.2023. It is seen that the applications came to be filed on 23.05.2023 to re-open and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1925 WP No. 27876 of 2024 re-call the order and permitting the petitioner-wife to contest the matter and defend the case. The applications having been filed prior to the pronouncement of judgment, the Family Court despite there being no objection filed to the said applications, ought to have been considered the application pragmatically and also taken into consideration the averments made in the affidavit with regard to the petitioner-wife having resided along with the husband, pursuant to the filing of the petition, as the same is not controverted by filing any objections. Under these circumstances, opportunity requires to be given to the petitioner-wife to contest the matter, to defend the matter and prove her case which has not been considered by the learned Family Court Judge despite objection not being filed by the respondent-husband. Under these circumstances, impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Writ Petition is disposed of. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1925 WP No. 27876 of 2024 ii) Impugned order dated 09.07.2024 passed by the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on I.A.Nos.4 and 5 is hereby set aside. iii) I.A.Nos.4 and 5 are consequently allowed. iv) Petitioner-wife is permitted to contest the matter. v) Family Court shall grant reasonable time by fixing time limit for filing objections and for recording of evidence and cross-examination and proceed with the matter expeditiously by providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner-wife. vi) In view of the fact that petitioner-wife is ready and willing to reside along with respondent- husband, Family Court is at liberty to explore the possibility of mediation process. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GPG