- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34647 WP No. 25566 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 25566 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. NAGARATHANA W/O.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O.NO.668, 6TH CROSS, 16TH MAIN, SBM COLONY SRINIVASANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. VENKATESH S/O. VENKATEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, C/O. RAMADASEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO.145/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD, ALLAMAPRABHU ROAD GAVIPURAM, HANUMANTHANAGAR BENGALURU-560 019 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU ON IA NO. 18 IN MC 4423/2014 DATED 28/03/2025, PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-L TO THE WRIT PETITION. 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 Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34647 WP No. 25566 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in IA No.18 in MC No. 4423/2014 dated 28.03.2025 by the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru whereby the family court had rejected the application, the wife is before this court. 2. Both the parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The respondent/husband has filed MC.No.4423/2014 seeking dissolution of marriage. In that petitioner/wife has filed I.A.No.18 to recall the order dated 02.07.2024 whereby the application that is filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC was kept in abeyance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now the case is for cross-examination of respondent and because of the health reason she could not cross examine PW-1 as such the same is closed and the cross examination is taken as NIL. It is submitted that if an opportunity is not given and the case is not reopened and an opportunity to cross examine PW-1 is not accorded, it would cause a lot of pressure to the wife. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34647 WP No. 25566 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ husband submits that in fact the court is fed up with the way, in the manner in which the petitioner/wife is pursuing the matter. It is submitted that the MC is of the year 2014. From 2014 till now she has made all her best efforts to delay the proceedings and the court had finally passed the order impugned. It is submitted that there are no grounds to interfere with the order. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either sides, perused the entire material on record. This court has perused the docket proceedings of the trial court and also the manner in which the wife is protracting the litigation right from the year 2014. There is a deliberate attempt on the part of the wife to drag on the proceedings. As a last opportunity, though this Court is initially not inclined to set aside this order, in the interests of justice and equity and to give a fair opportunity to the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one final opportunity. 7. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34647 WP No. 25566 of 2025 ORDER i. The order passed on IA No.18 in MC No. 4423/2014 dated 28.03.2025 by the I Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is set aside. ii. The petitioner/wife shall cross examine the husband/PW-1 and the MC proceedings shall be concluded within a month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. iii. Even if a day the petitioner/wife seeks for adjournment, for each adjournment, the family court shall impose Rs.20,000/- costs. iv. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. v. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34