- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46467 WP No. 33500 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 33500 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. LATHA ALIAS SWATHI, W/O. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, 8TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN ROAD, JAIMARUTHI NAGAR, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU -560 096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUJAYEENDRA SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. M. PRABHAKAR, S/O. MOHAN KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.106, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, PRAKASH NAGAR, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46467 WP No. 33500 of 2025 BENGALURU - 560 021. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SHARVANI P.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL S. REDDY, ADVOCATE) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A). CALL FOR RECORDS; B). ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION SETTING ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 ON IA NO. 15 DATED 12.09.2025 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO REOPEN THE STAGE OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF PW-1, M.C. NO. 2971/2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46467 WP No. 33500 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.15 and 16 dated 12.09.2025 in M.C.No.2971/2018 dated 25.09.2025 by the IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, whereby the Family Court had rejected the applications, the petitioner/wife is before this Court. 2. The parties are referred to as husband and wife for the sake of convenience. 3. The husband had filed M.C.No.2971/2018 seeking divorce. In that, the wife had filed I.A.No.15 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the stage of further cross-examination of witness as PW1 and I.A.No.16 under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC to recall the order dated 07.08.2025 by permitting the wife to cross-examine PW-1. 4. The Family Court had rejected I.A.Nos.15 and 16 filed by the wife. While rejecting the applications, the Family Court had observed that on perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the husband had led his evidence on 21.08.2023. Thereafter, matter was pending for cross-examination of the husband on 29.09.2023, 10.11.2023, 04.01.2024. 15.02.2024, 20.03.2024. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46467 WP No. 33500 of 2025 On these dates, counsel for the wife has not cross-examined the husband. On 23.02.2024, cross of PW1 was taken as nil. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments by taking the evidence of respondent as nil on 15.04.2024. Thereafter, again similar applications were filed on 28.05.2024 and PW1 was recalled. The matter was posted for cross-examination on several dates, PW1 was not cross-examined and cross of PW1 was taken as nil. PW1 was recalled on 19.09.2024. Thereafter, several applications were filed. Again the matter was posted for further cross of PW1. From 13.01.2025, the matter is pending for further cross of PW1. On 27.03.2025 PW1 was recalled. But cross-examination was not done. Thereafter, matter was posted for wife's evidence. Even the wife had not led her evidence in spite of providing sufficient opportunities. On 08.07.2025, PW1 was recalled. In spite of recall of PW1 on 07.08.2025, counsel for the wife has not further cross- examined PW1 and matter was posted for wife's evidence. On 07.08.2025, the counsel for the wife had filed I.A.Nos.11 and 12 for the purpose of cross of PW1 and the said applications were allowed on costs of Rs.500/- subject to the condition that wife shall cross-examine PW1 on the said date itself. But the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46467 WP No. 33500 of 2025 counsel for the wife submitted that he is not ready to do so and hence, as already sufficient time granted and no good grounds to adjourn, the further cross of PW1 was taken as nil and posted the matter for arguments by 12.09.2025. Then the wife had filed these two applications to reopen the stage of further cross of PW1 by recalling the order dated 07.08.2025. 5. The Family Court had observed that the conduct of the wife side clearly reveals that with a malafide intention to protract the proceedings these applications are filed and the Court cannot assist the party who is not coming to the Court with clean hands. The conduct of the wife is very clear that it is not fair and genuine. Conducting the proceedings in this manner is nothing but pure abuse of process of law and misuse of process of law. The counsel for the wife has not utilized the opportunity to cross-examine PW1 when they were given to him. The reasons assigned for recall of PW1 are not at all satisfying and it is nothing but a method of protracting the proceedings without any valid reason. Hence, the applications were rejected with cost of Rs.1,000/-. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46467 WP No. 33500 of 2025 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/wife has reiterated the very same grounds as were the taken before the Family Court and submits that on some costs, the application may be allowed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/husband submits that the Family Court had given number of opportunities to the wife to cross-examine the husband and to lead her evidence. Neither she has cross-examined the husband nor she has adduced her evidence and the Family Court had rightly held that it is nothing but pure abuse of process of law and delaying tactics. It is submitted that the writ petition has to be dismissed with costs. 8. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. This is a classic case, where the party is abusing the process of the Court and the manner in which the proceedings are delayed or protracted. The M.C. is of the year 2018 and in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has extracted the order of the Family Court how many times the matter was adjourned for cross-examining of PW1 and how many times it is reopened. This is a case where - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46467 WP No. 33500 of 2025 exemplary costs have to be imposed. The cost of Rs.1,000/- imposed by the Family Court is very nominal amount. In these circumstances, this Court do not find any reasons to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following order: ORDER i. This M.C. is of the year 2018. The Family Court shall dispose M.C.No.2971/2018 as expeditiously as possible, but not later than 15.01.2026. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. iii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12