- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 3705 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: KUMARI ABHA SINHA WIFE OF DEEPAK KUMAR SINHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.A-101, VINEYARD GARDENS, DODDA BANASWADI, BANGALORE-560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. N DINESH RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: MR. DEEPAK KUMAR SINHA SON OF LATE YUGESHWAR PRASAD SINHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING OF A-7-303, PROVIDENT HARMONY, CHOKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, RK HEGDE NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 064. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. DEEPAK KUMAR SINHA., PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING ORDER DATED 30/01/2026 PASSED ON LA NOS.25 AND 26 IN M.C. NO.3994/2017 C/W M.C. NO 5355/2018 PASSED BY VI ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED ANNEXURE-L AND GRANT AN INTERIM PRAYER TO STAY ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN IN M.C. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 NO.3994/2017 C/W M.C. NO. 5355/2018 ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU, TILL DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.06.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV ORDER This petition is filed by petitioner-wife praying to quash the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by VI Additional Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A. Nos.XXV and XXVI in M.C. No.3994 for 2017 c/w M.C. No.5355/2018. The said I.As. were filed to recall the order dated 06.12.2025, closing the evidence of the petitioner side and to permit them to examine their witnesses as per the list of witnesses submitted by them in I.A. No.XX. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that respondent-husband filed M.C. No.3994 for 2017 for dissolution of the marriage with her. The petitioner-wife also filed M.C. No.5355 for 2018 for restitution of conjugal rights. Both the cases were clubbed and the parties were directed to proceed with the case in M.C. No.3994 of 2017. The respondent-husband was examined - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 PW1 and Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P74 were marked. The petitioner-wife was examined as DW1 and Exhibit D1 to Exhibit D157 were marked. 3. The family Court observed that there was direction on 11.02.2025 by this High Court in W.P. No.36512 of 2024 filed by husband, to dispose of the matter within outer limitation of four months from the date of receipt of the order. The family Court received the said order of this High Court on 15.03.2025. Even then, the wife filed several I.As. and she also filed an application to permit her to examine three witnesses on her behalf and they are residing in North India, far away. The family Court observed that the purpose of examining the witnesses is not mentioned and both the witnesses filed several documents and were also cross examined at length. In fact, the husband also advanced his arguments and accordingly, dismissed the applications. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is filed seekig to quash the order dated 30.01.2026 passed on I.A. No.XXV and XXVI in M.C. No.3994 of 2017 connected with M.C. No.5355 of 2018. It is stated that the petitioner-wife already - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 filed the list of witnesses at the earliest point of time i.e. on 11.03.2022 in M.C. No.5355 of 2018. Again after clubbing of both the petitions, she filed the same list of witnesses along with I.A. No.XX. 5. The petitioner in written submissions before the Family Court explained as to why she wanted to examine the said witnesses, but it was not considered by the Family Court. It is a well settled principle of law that parties to the litigation should be granted a reasonable opportunity to adduce evidence on their behalf. Respondent-husband deserted the petitioner and her son on 10.04.2017. From that day onwards, the petitioner is trying her level best to join him. The matters were referred for mediation, but the respondent-husband refused. Thus, requested this Court to quash the order dated 30.01.2026 passed on I.A. No.XXV and XXVI in M.C. No.3994 of 2017 connected with M.C. No.5355 of 2018. 6. In the objections filed by the respondent/party in person, it is stated that the petitioner-wife commenced cross examination of respondent on 14.11.2018 and she took 6 to 8 months to complete the same. She filed several applications, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 memos and also changed several advocates. Cross examination was done through 4 advocates in 11 sessions. In fact, the cross examination was recorded as on 29.06.2019, 09.01.2020 and 26.03.2025. Therefore, respondent-husband filed W.P. No.36512 of 2024 for expeditious disposal of the matrimonial cases. This Court gave direction on 11.02.2025 to the Family Court to dispose of the matter in four months. It is further stated that since last 11 months, his wife is protracting trial by filing numerous applications and challenging them in higher courts and changing advocates and not cooperating with the court. 7. The respondent has relied upon the order passed in WP No. 1154 of 2026 dated 09.02.2026 filed by wife against the orders of the Family Court in IA No.XXX in MC No. 2270 of 2019 dated 28.11.2025. This court discussed the journey of trial from 2019 onwards in detail and abserved in para No.9 that family court vexed with the attitude of the wife in conducting the proceedings and dismissed the applications. In fact, there are no merits in the application and wife intentionally dragged on the matter not only wasted the time of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 the family court and but also this Court and dismissed the Writ Petition and imposed cost of Rs.10,000/-. The respondent also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of PUSHPA KHANNA & ANR. VS. SANJAY NARANG & ORS. in CM(M) 36(2021) & CM APPL. 1765/2021 dated 28.06.2024, wherein it was observed as follows: “It is noteworthy that reopening of evidence is not a matter of right for the parties. It can only be allowed, if it is essential for the just decision of the case. The Court must be satisfied that the additional evidence is crucial and was not produced earlier due to reasons beyond the control of the party. The case titled The K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy (2) RCR Civil 875 serves as a precedent for courts to follow a balanced approach while dealing with applications for reopening evidence. It underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the role of the Courts in preventing abuse of process while ensuring that justice is served.” 8. A Rejoinder was also filed by the petitioner-wife in the petition to the statement of objections. 9. The respondent-husband stated that, in fact, the petitioner-wife filed 18 cases against him and not pursued them with a due diligence. On one hand, she filed criminal cases - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 alleging harassment and on the other hand, she filed case for restitution of conjugal rights. 10. Admittedly, in the application filed for examination of witnesses, the purpose of examining those witnesses is not mentioned. Already there is a direction by this Court in W.P. No.36512 of 2024, wherein this Court has observed as follows: “7.XXX though the petition was filed in the year 2017 and today we are presently in the month of February 2025, more than 8 years have been passed and the case has not seen the light of the day. The petitioner and the respondent are before the Court from the past eight years without any relief. The purpose and intent of the provisions are to see that the parties come before the Court for matrimonial disputes and get immediate relief and part either way to lead their own lives and live peacefully thereafter. In the present case there is no such relief or remedy that is provided to the parties.” 11. Though there is a direction to dispose of the matter within stipulated time, even then, the petitioner-wife has not co-operated for disposal of the case. 12. The Family Court granted more than sufficient opportunity to both sides, considered all the aspects and rightly dismissed the applications. It cannot be considered as a case - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33182 WP No. 3705 of 2026 where no opportunity was granted to the petitioner-wife, but it is a case that it can be considered as a case of clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order, and also finds it reasonable to direct the petitioner herein to advance arguments before the Family Court within 10 days, as Respondent-husband already advanced arguments and Family Court is directed to dispose of the matter in two months from today. 13. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Family Court is hereby quashed. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41