- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15817 WP No. 102774 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102146 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 102774 OF 2025 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 102146 OF 2025 IN W.P.NO.102774/2025: BETWEEN: SRI. RAJENDRA S. ARKERI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED, R/O. SHUBHAM, KRISHI COLONY, 6TH CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 006. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHIMAPPA S/O. CHANMALLAPPA KURBET, AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER, R/O. CHANILAYA, KRISHI COLONY, 6TH CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 006. 2. SMT. SAROJA W/O. BHIMAPPA KURBET, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. CHANILAYA, KRISHI COLONY, 6TH CROSS, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED IN M.C.NO. 195/2020 BY THE PRL. FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE – G AND ETC., Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15817 WP No. 102774 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102146 of 2025 IN W.P.NO.102146/2025: BETWEEN: SMT. SAROJA W/O. BHIMAPPA KURBET, AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KRISHI COLONY BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI 590 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL AND ROHIT S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BHIMAPPA S/O. CHANAMALLAPPA KURBET, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER, R/O: KRISHI COLONY, BHAGYA NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 006. 2. RAJENDRA S. ARKERI, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: RETD., R/O: 6TH CROSS, BHAGYA NAGR, KRISHI COLONY BELGAVI – 590 006 . …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. CHETANA S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED ON 19.02.2025 IN M.C. NO. 195/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BELAGAVI VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THAT THE COST OF THE PROCEEDINGS BE AWARDED TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN AND ETC., THESE WRIT PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDRES THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15817 WP No. 102774 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102146 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. In the batch of these petitions, the order that is called in question is common. The issue revolves round the family. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.102774/2025 is the 2nd respondent(husband) in M.C. No.195/2020 and the companion petition is preferred by respondent No.1(wife). Therefore, both the petitions are preferred by the respondents in the aforesaid matrimonial case. The issue that has driven the petitioners to this Court is permitting son(PW.2) of the petitioners to appear through video conference for cross-examination. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in unison would submit that PW.2 is a resident of Belagavi. There are cases that he is attending at Belagavi Court but is presently residing in Goa and can always travel to Belagavi, video conference should not have been permitted. 4. The submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioners would merit acceptance, as the PW.2 is only 100 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15817 WP No. 102774 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102146 of 2025 kilometers away from Belagavi and not anywhere else for him to appear through video conference. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 Sri.Jagadish Patil submits that there is threat to his life or limb as he has been receiving threatening messages from all and sundary. Therefore, is wanting video conference. 6. The submission, though, would be partially acceptable, it is not acceptable that PW.2 would appear for cross-examination through video conference. He shall be present before the Court on 26.11.2025 and conclude his cross- examination or re-examination, as the case would be, on the same date. In the event, there is any threat that is meted out by these petitioners to PW.2, as is contended, the concerned Court is at liberty to pass necessary orders against the petitioners, who are allegedly threatening PW.2, which is denied by the petitioners. However, it is for the petitioners to encourage restraint and not generate message of threat to PW.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15817 WP No. 102774 of 2025 C/W WP No. 102146 of 2025 7. Both the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent in unison would again submit that the proceedings are pending before the concerned Court for the last 5 years. Therefore, the concerned Court shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings with an outer limit of six months, if not earlier from the date on which the cross-examination would get concluded. 8. With the aforesaid observations, directing PW.2 to appear before the concerned Court on 26.11.2025, the petitions stand disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE kmv CT-ASC