- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 28024 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: MR.KARTHIK T.P. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O THEKKATTE PANIRAJ HEBBAR NO.297,11TH CROSS 25TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 1ST PHASE, NEAR LIC APARTMENTS BENGALURU-560078 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHAKAR L SHETTY.,ADVOCATE) AND: SMT.ACHALA P AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, W/O SRI KARTHIK T P RESIDING AT SUSWEE APARTMENTS NO.29/4/4, 15TH MAIN, 5TH PHASE J. P.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078 …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD. 03.09.2025 PASSED IN M.C.NO. 5546 OF 2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU, ON APPLICATION IN I.A.NO. 7 UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC FOR RE-OPENING CASE FROM CLOSING THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND IA NO.8 UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17A R.W SECTION 151 CPC VIDE ANNX-D AND E. CONSEQUENTLY Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS IN I.A. 7 UNDER SEC 151 OF CPC FOR RE-OPENING CASE FROM CLOSING THE EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER AND IA NO. 8 UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17A R/W SEC 151 CPC FOR RECALL THE ORDER DTD 02.08.2024 EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER TO PETITIONER EVIDENCE, VIDE ANNX-D AND E. FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN MC NO. 5546/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDL. FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.7 in M.C. No. 5546/2018, the husband is before this Court. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the husband had filed M.C. No. 5546/2018 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In that the wife had filed counter claim seeking divorce. The present I.A.No. 7 is filed to reopen the case from the stage of arguments to the stage of the petitioner's evidence. It is stated that, the petition was posted on 02.08.2024 for the evidence of the husband. Since their settlement proposal was going on he did not lead his evidence. However, the Court was pleased to close the evidence of the petitioner as nil on 12.09.2024 and the matter was posted to 28.02.2025 and then - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 the wife led her evidence on 25.10.2024 and posted the petition on 7.12.2024 for cross examination of R.W.1-wife, and since the learned counsel did not go with the cross examination of the wife, the cross examination of the wife was taken as nil and posted the petition to 23.01.2025 and to 28.02.2025. It was stated that settlement efforts are made by the elders of both the families and hence he did not lead the evidence and also did not cross-examine the wife. 3. Thereafter, during the end of January 2025, the wife has finally refused to participate in the settlement, and hence the present application is filed by the husband and has sought to recall the order dated 02.08.2024 and also permit him to lead the evidence. The said application came to be dismissed by the Family Court. Being aggrieved, the husband is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- husband has reiterated the grounds that are raised before the Court, and submits that, because the compromise talks are going on he has not participated in the proceedings and now in the month of February, 2025, when the wife finally refused to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 participate in the settlement, the husband has come up with this application and in the interest of justice this application needs to be allowed. 5. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent- wife submits that, the submission that the compromise talks are going on, is without any basis, and in fact, when the wife had filed the Domestic Violence case from 30.5.2024 till 11.7.2024 the husband has cross-examined the wife on different occasions, and this would clearly show that the submission that is made before the Court with regard to the compromise talks is not correct and when the husband is proceeding in the domestic violence case, what was the reason for him not to prosecute this matter, and the Court considering the lapses on the part of the husband had rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the order on I.A.No.7 in M.C.No.5546/2018 passed by the V Additional Family Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. 6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material placed on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 7. The Court, while dismissing the application had observed that the petition seeking for restitution of conjugal rights was filed on 12.10.2018, and on 14.1.2020, the wife had filed objections with the counter claim of divorce. In spite of giving sufficient opportunity the husband has not filed his objection to the counter claim. Hence, as per the order dated 27.9.2021, the Court had taken the objection to the counter claim as not filed and posted the matter for evidence on 7.12.2021. At the instance of the husband, the matter was adjourned for evidence. On 21.03.2022, the husband has filed application for visitation rights, and on 11.4.2022 the matter was ordered to be referred to Mediation. On 31.03.2023, the wife filed I.A.No.5 for maintenance. On 5.10.2023, I.A.Nos. 3 and 5 were allowed in part. On 26.03.2024, by imposing cost of Rs.500/- the Court was pleased to adjourn the matter for evidence of the husband and thereafter the matter was adjourned for evidence of the husband as a last chance and finally on 03.07.2024 and 02.08.2024. On 02.08.2024, the husband and the learned advocate for the respondent were present and the husband prayed for time to lead his evidence and the respondent advocate opposed for granting time In - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 spite of giving sufficient opportunities, the husband has not led his evidence and the court had taken the evidence as nil and posted the matter for evidence of the respondent and this happened on 02.08.2024. 8. On 7.12.2024 examination-in-chief of the wife was completed and in spite of giving several opportunities to the husband he has not cross-examined RW.1-wife. Hence, by order dated 23.01.2025, the Court has taken the cross examination of RW-1-wife as nil and posted the matter for arguments. On 28.02.2025, the learned counsel for the wife addressed arguments and the matter was posted for arguments of the husband. On 19.4.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the husband and the court was pleased to take arguments of the husband as not addressed and posted the matter for judgement. After the matter was posted for judgement on 19.4.2025 itself, the husband got advanced the case and filed the applications. It is observed that the only reason that is stated is the compromise talks were going on, he could not lead his evidence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 9. The Court has also observed that, when it is stated that the compromise talks are going on, the wife was cross examined at length in the Domestic Violence case, and if really what the petitioner-husband says is correct and genuine, he would not have waited till the matter was posted for judgement on 19.04.2025. As on 2.8.2024, the court was pleased to take the evidence of the husband as nil and it is the case of the wife that only with an intention to harass, the present application is filed and the Court considering the proceedings, how it went on from 2020 till 2025, had dismissed the petition. 10. The argument of the learned counsel with regard to the compromise talks and for that reason they have not prosecuting this matter or they have not cross examined the wife and on that ground giving opportunity the order has to be recalled and cannot be considered by this Court. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take his own time and waste the time of the Court from 2020 till 2025 and when the matter is posted for judgement he cannot come before the Family Court with this kind of excuses. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 11. On 02.08.2024 itself when his evidence was closed, the husband has kept quite and admittedly from 30.05.2024 till 11.07.2024 he was extensively cross-examining the wife in the Domestic Violence case. If really there are compromise talks are going on between the parties he would not have cross examined the wife even in the Domestic Violence case also and the Court is not able to understand when the compromise talks are not coming in the way of the husband for cross examining the wife in the domestic violence case, why is it coming in the way in the matrimonial case, this Court is not able to understand. Further, when the husband has filed the M.C. petition for restitution of conjugal rights and the wife had filed her counter claim seeking divorce he has not chosen to file his objections on the counter claim and the Court has taken the objections has not filed and in the preceding paragraphs this court has extracted the observations of the family court and the dates on which the matter was listed and are adjourned would clearly shows that there are no bonafides on the part of the husband in prosecuting the matter. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36861 WP No. 28024 of 2025 12. On these kinds of grounds, the petitioner cannot be permitted to lead his evidence when he consciously has chosen not to file his objections and has been dragging on the matter from 2020 from 2021. 13. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the Family Court has given its anxious consideration to I.A.No.7 and has rightly dismissed the application. 14. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) All I.As., in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE HR