- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34774 WP No. 10209 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 10209 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHARMILA RAMESH W/O SUBRAMANYA R JOIS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.1017, 25TH MAIN ROAD, 4TH 'T' BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 049. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAY SWAMY C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI SUBRAMANYA R JOIS S/O LATE RAGHUNATH JOIS, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SINGAPORE GARDENS, GUBALALA CROSS, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. YESHU BABA R MISHRA.,ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT ORDER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2026 PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN I.A NO. 10 AND 11 IN M.C NO.994/2019 I.E ANNEXURE-D.B. WRIT OF MANDAMUS BY Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34774 WP No. 10209 of 2026 ALLOWING THE I.A NO.10 AND 11 FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE II ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, AT BENGALURU IN M.C NO.994/2019 I.E ANNEXURE-B. THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL ORDER Heard the arguments of both the side. This writ petition is filed against the order dated 04.03.2026 on the file of II Additional Principal Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.Nos.10 and 11 in M.C.No.994/2019. The M.C.No.994/2019 filed by the husband for divorce is coming up for cross-examination of PW-1. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he could not cross-examine him on 04.03.2026. 2. On perusal of the order dated 04.03.2026, which reads as follows:- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34774 WP No. 10209 of 2026 The respondent is absent. Petitioner and the respective learned counsels for both the parties are present. The learned counsel for respondent submits that she is ready for cross examination. Hence, kept by for cross of PW-1. Again called at 12.55 p.m. The respondent is absent. Petitioner and the respective learned counsels for both the parties are present. The learned counsel for respondent submits that her senior colleague is on the way from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. Hence, on his request, kept by for cross of PW1. Again called at 1.16 p.m. The respondent is absent. Petitioner and the respective learned counsels for both the parties are present. The learned counsel for respondent submits that his senior colleague is on the way. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that one every occasion, the same submission made by the other side. Hence, cross examination may be taken as nil. Admittedly, the case is called thrice, but the learned counsel for respondent making similar submission. Therefore, prayer is rejected. Consequently, further cross examination of petitioner/PW1 is taken as nil. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no further evidence to lead. On the request of learned counsel for respondent, to lead defence evidence, as a last chance, call on 04.03.2026. 3. The Family Court clearly observed that more than reasonable opportunity was given to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34774 WP No. 10209 of 2026 petitioner herein for cross-examination of PW1 and it was observed that they sought for the relief for the 5th time and it is also stated that already there was a direction to dispose of the matter by the end of September, 2025 and thereafter it is extended to December, 2025 and then to March, 2026. Even afterwards the learned counsel for the petitioner did not come forward to cross-examine. As such, the said applications were rejected. This clearly shows that family Court gave reasonable opportunity to the petitioner herein, but she has not cross-examined PW1 deliberately. The perusal of the previous documents also shows that even reasonable opportunity was granted on costs as there was direction by the High Court. The Family Court, after granting reasonable opportunity, rightly rejected the applications. However, as the application is filed by husband for divorce, this Court finds that she should - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34774 WP No. 10209 of 2026 be given reasonable opportunity to cross examine the witness. Therefore, she is permitted as a last chance to cross-examine the witness within one week from the date of the order. Otherwise, Family Court is at liberty to close the cross-examination and can proceed with the matter further. She is also directed to deposit Rs.5,000/- costs to the District Legal Services Authority and directed to file the said copy of the receipt before the family court before commencing the cross-examination. 4. Both the counsels are directed to co-operate with the Family Court for disposal of the matter within the stipulated period. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24