- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34315 WP No. 9814 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 9814 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MRS. SONI KUMARI W/O. HIMANSHUKUMAR SAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT 201, OM SAI PEARLS, 16TH CROSS, NEELADRI NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560 100 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LOHITASWA BANAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. HIMANSHU KUMAR SAH, S/O. KHIROD CHANDRA SAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT 201, OM SAI PEARLS, 16TH CROSS, NEELADRI NAGAR, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560 100. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MANJUNATH .V., ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2025 PASSED IN M.C. NO. 464/2021 ON THE FILE OF PRL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL AT BANGALORE ON I.A NO. 4, FILED UNDER ORDER18 RULE 17, R/W SECTION 151 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., THIS W.P., COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34315 WP No. 9814 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on 28.02.2025 in MC.No.464/2021, by the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, whereby the Court had rejected IA Nos.4 to 6 filed by the respondent, the present writ petition is filed. The Court has passed an order observing that it has heard the counsels on IA No.4 to 6. IA Nos.4 and 5 are filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC and Under Section 151 of CPC to recall PW1 for further cross - examination and IA No.6 is filed under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, seeking interim maintenance. 2. It is further observed that several adjournments were taken for further cross-examination and it is rejected ultimately and further cross-examination taken as nil. The applications are filed when the case is posted for arguments. When the Court inclined to provide another opportunity, counsel again prays time that, Senior has gone to attend another Court. Hence, the Court felt that IA Nos.4 and 5 are filed without genuine intention and to drag the proceedings. Hence, IA Nos.4 and 5 are rejected. The present writ petition is filed questioning IA Nos.4 and 5 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC and under Section 151 CPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34315 WP No. 9814 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner -wife submits that she is staying in Bihar and because there is threat to her life, several times, she has not appeared before the Court and if, the case is not recalled and an opportunity is not granted to cross-examine PW1, it will cause lot of hardship to the wife. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - husband herein has drawn the attention of the Court to the orders right from 2022, and on how many occasions the wife was absent and on how many occasions the Family Court had granted the permission to cross-examine PW1 on payment of costs. It is submitted that in spite of an order passed by the Family Court by imposing costs, neither the costs are paid nor she has proceeded with the cross-examination. Whenever the matter is posted for arguments, the wife is coming up with this application. It is the clear intention of the wife to drag on the proceedings and the Family Court had rightly considered and dismissed the application. 5. This Court has perused the order sheet right from the inception, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-husband on so many occasions, there was no - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34315 WP No. 9814 of 2025 representation and inspite of the indulgence by the Court, by granting repeated opportunities to cross -examine PW1, the wife has not proceeded with the matter and time, and again, the Court had imposed costs on three or four occasions, which is around Rs.7,500/-. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - husband submits that the petitioner-wife had not even paid the costs, nor she has questioned the said order. It is the submission of the counsel for the wife is that she is residing in Bihar and there is a threat to the life of the wife. As such, she could not proceed with the cross-examination. He submits that if a date is given, on that day she will complete the cross- examination. This submission of the petitioner has no legs to stand. If the threat is persisting from 2022 and she is not able to proceed with the matter, how she will be proceeding with the matter on the next day of hearing. Even in the affidavit that is filed before this Court, proper reasons are not forthcoming why she has not appeared before the Court. This Court initially inclined to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34315 WP No. 9814 of 2025 7. Considering the fact that if the wife do not get an opportunity to cross-examine the husband, then it would cause lot of prejudice to her. Hence, balancing the interest of both the parties, the order impugned is set aside i.e. Order in IA Nos.4 and 5 is set aside on cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the husband. The petitioner shall cross-examine the respondent - husband on 22.09.2025. Only on payment of costs, she shall be permitted to cross-examine the husband on 22.09.2025, or else, the order impugned, shall come into force. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER The writ petition is disposed of. All pending I.As, if any, in the writ petition shall stand closed. Sd/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32