- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33614 WP No. 18631 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION NO. 18631 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SMT. SHAMASHETTY AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS W/O SHANKAR R BHAVANI R/AT NO.87/5A, 11TH CROSS, HARSHA LAYOUT, KENGERI BENGALURU-560 060 REPRESENTED BY THE GPA HOLDER, SRI. MANJU SHETTY, S/O SHASHIDHAR SHETTY, AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, THAGGUNJE, AJIRI, UDUPI- 576 283. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH SHETTY T., ADVOCATE) AND: SRI SHANKAR R BHAVANI AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O REVANNA SIDDAPP L J R/AT NO.2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, HEMAVATHI NAGARA, HASSAN -573 201 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T SESHAGIRI RAO., ADVOCATE AND SRI SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINS TO PROCEEDINGS IN M.C. NO. 198/2023 Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33614 WP No. 18631 of 2026 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. FAMILY COURT, HASSAN AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 9/6/2026 PASSED IN I.A. NO.8 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. R/W ORDER 18, RULE 17, I.A. NO.9 AND 10 FILED UNDER SECTION 151 OF CPC. IN M.C. NO. 198/2023 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I ADDL. FAMILY COURT AT HASSN, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATIONS IN I.A. NOS. 8, 9 AND 10 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.07.2026 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 writ petition is filed against the order dated 09.06.2026 passed on I.A. No.8, 9, and 10 in M.C.No.198 of 2023 by the I Additional Family Court, Hassan. 2. M.C. No.198 of 2023 is filed by the respondent herein (husband) against the petitioner herein (wife) for divorce. In the said proceedings, petitioner-wife filed I.A.Nos.8 to 10 to recall the order dated 05.06.2026, to reopen the stage of the case for evidence of the petitioner-wife and to lead further evidence of petitioner-wife respectively. But, all the applications were dismissed by the Family Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33614 WP No. 18631 of 2026 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition is preferred by the petitioner-wife and mainly contented that their marriage was performed in the year 2020. Both of them resided in Hassan. Subsequently, the respondent-husband went to USA in the year 2022 and petitioner-wife also went to USA to join matrimonial home on 14.02.2023. Initially, she was abused and later, the respondent-husband left for India. He filed the aforementioned M.C. for divorce. Summons were not served on petitioner since she was in USA and therefore, she was set ex-parte. It is further contended that on coming to know of the proceedings, she appeared and preferred application to recall the order of ex-parte and to permit her to participate in the proceedings. She also filed statement of objections. She was examined herself as R.W.1 and examined R.Ws.2 and 3 on her behalf. Case was posted for further evidence on 05.06.2026. As she could not attend on that day, respondent-husband's evidence was closed and it was posted for final arguments to 08.06.2026. On the said day, the petitioner-wife filed I.A. Nos.8, 9 and 10 for recalling, re-opening trial and for leading further evidence, stating that the advocate appearing for her was having Master’s examination on 05.06.2026 itself and she - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33614 WP No. 18631 of 2026 could not attend to the proceedings. She also she enclosed hall ticket of examination, but, the Family Court did not consider and dismissed all the applications. As the petitioner- wife had no other alternative and efficacious remedy, she filed this writ petition and requested this Court for quashing of the order dated 09.06.2026. 4. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner-wife relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998)7 SCC 123, in which it was held as follows: “that rules of limitation and procedure are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. A Court must ask whether the default was a deliberate stalling tactic or an act of mala fide intent. Where there is no bad faith or intentional delay, a minor delay can always be condoned and balanced by imposing compensatory costs on the defaulting party, ensuring that the doors of justice are not closed permanently.” 5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33614 WP No. 18631 of 2026 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband filed documents produced before the Family Court and argued that reasonable opportunities were given to the petitioner-wife and her conduct was clearly mentioned in the impugned order in detail and the Family Court has rightly dismissed the applications. 7. Perused the order of the Family Court in which at paragraphs 6 to 8 of the order, the details of adjournments granted to the petitioner-wife on various dates were clearly narrated and finally observed that petitioner-wife is trying to drag on the proceedings. The Family Court also relied upon Order XVII proviso (b) in which it was stated that no adjournment shall be granted at the request of the party where the circumstances are beyond the control of the party. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-wife has clearly stated that her counsel before the court below was having examination and as such, the petitioner-wife could not attend the case. But the trial Court observed that, there are two advocates on the record, namely V. S. Ananda and A. P. Renuka. At least, one of the advocates should have represented - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33614 WP No. 18631 of 2026 the petitioner-wife. So, the petitioner herein was given more than reasonable opportunity, but she failed to attend the same and she made her best efforts to drag on the proceedings. The Family Court considered all the aspects in detail and rightly dismissed the applications. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. 9. In the result, this writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed confirming the impugned order of the Family Court. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31