- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53764 WP No. 34307 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 34307 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: HANNSQUIN EINSTEIN D/O EINSTEIN PUTHENVEETIL KOCHUNNY, W/O RENSON THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT FLAT 204, SLV GRAND APARTMENT, 19TH MAIN 36TH CROSS, HBR LAYOUT, 5TH BLOCK, BANGALORE 560043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHASHANK S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS S.V., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53764 WP No. 34307 of 2025 AND: RENSON TOMAS S/O MR. C M THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1777, 18TH A MAIN, 4TH CROSS, JP NAGAR PHASE - 02, BANGALORE - 560 078 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. BEENA P.K., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO1) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.10.2025 IN M.C. NO. 4087/2020 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, WHEREBY I.A. NO. 10 UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151, CPC AND I.A. NO. 11 UNDER SECTION 151, CPC FILED BY THE PETITIONER WAS REJECTED, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW I.A NOS. 10 AND 11. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53764 WP No. 34307 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in IA Nos.10 and 11 in MC No.4087/2020 dated 08.10.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had dismissed the applications that is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, the wife is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience 3. The respondent/husband herein has filed MC No.4087/2020 seeking dissolution of marriage with the petitioner/wife. It is the case of the husband that the wife has filed an IA Nos.10 and 11 seeking reopening of the case and recall the PW1 for further cross-examination, contending that she could not cross-examine the husband completely. The said applications came to be dismissed by the order impugned. The Family Court observed that, the matter has been pending for cross-examination of PW1 from 16.06.2023 and several adjournments were granted from 02.09.2023, 26.10.2023, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53764 WP No. 34307 of 2025 02.12.2023, 27.07.2024 and thereafter on 23.08.2025 for the cross-examination. The Court further observed that sufficient time had been granted to the respondent for cross- examination, in spite of that, the respondent has sought time for cross-examination and also requested to take up the matter on 17.10.2025, on which date already more than 100 cases were posted on the board and 15 cases are meant for cross- examination. Therefore, on 17.10.2025, the matter could not be taken up for cross-examination. The Court held that the reasons assigned by the petitioner/wife herein to recall PW1 were not at all satisfactory and that sufficient time had already been granted to cross-examine the husband. But, the counsel for the wife had not utilized the adjournments granted for the cross-examination. Accordingly, IA Nos.10 and 11 filed by the wife came to be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife submits that, due to the ill health of the counsel, they could not cross-examine PW-1 on that day. In fact, the cross- examination has already been conducted on four occasions, and if one more opportunity is granted, they will complete the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53764 WP No. 34307 of 2025 cross-examination. It is further submitted that they have no intention of dragging on the proceedings. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband has placed before this Court the data to show how many times the matter was listed before the Court and the number of adjournments sought at the request of the learned counsel for the wife It is submitted that, with an intention to drag on the proceedings, the petitioner/wife has been filing one application after another. It is further submitted that even in the present proceedings, time has been conveniently sought and the matter is listed in the month of January, i.e., 06.01.2026. It is submitted that when the writ petition was filed, submissions were made before the Family Court, that the proceedings were stayed by this court. Despite such indulgence, the petitioner continues to drag on the matter. The Court has already granted sufficient opportunity, and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this Court. It is further submitted that the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs for dragging on the proceedings and for wasting precious judicial time. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53764 WP No. 34307 of 2025 6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the material on record. No doubt, the petitioner has taken several adjournments for completing the cross- examination of PW1 and has now filed an application seeking to recall of PW1 for further cross-examination. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the order that is passed by the Family Court, which is well-considered order. However, considering the nature of the dispute between the parties and in order to see that the litigation between the parties have to attain finality by affording proper opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following order: ORDER 1. The order passed in IA Nos.10 and 11 in MC No.4087/2020 dated 08.10.2025 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is set aside. 2. The petitioner shall cross-examine the husband on 06.01.2026, for what so ever reasons if he is not able to cross-examine the husband on that day, no further time - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53764 WP No. 34307 of 2025 shall be given and the Court shall proceed with the further proceedings. 3. Considering the manner in which the matter has been dragged from 2023 till now, the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost to the wife. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. All I.As. in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT-SG