IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No. 24366/2019 (GM-FC) BETWEEN:
Devendra Sharma, S/o Mr. Sudhdeo Prasad Sharma, Aged 40 years, R/o No.C803, Spring Beauty Apartment, Kundanhalli, Bengaluru-560 037. …PETITIONER (By Smt. Nandita Haldipur, Advocate) AND:
Reenu Sharma, W/o Devendra Sharma, Aged 38 years, R/o 509, A Block, Purva Manor Apartment, Seegahalli, Hosakote Main Road, Whitefield, Bangalore-560 006. ... RESPONDENT (By Smt. Bhanu Ravinder, Advocate) … THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 11.3.2019 AND 9.4.2019 PASSED IN MC 2841/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT, ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This writ petition is filed by the husband for a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 11.3.2019 and 9.4.2019 made in M.C.No.2841/2014 by the I Additional Family Court, Bengaluru to recall P.W.1 and permit the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1 respectively.
2. The present respondent, who is wife of the petitioner filed a petition before the Family Court under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce raising various contentions and the same was opposed by the present petitioner by filing objections.
3. When the matter was posted on 11.3.2019 before the Family Court, there was no representation on behalf of the present petitioner-husband. Hence, the cross-examination of P.W.1 was taken as ‘NIL’ and the evidence on the wife’s side was closed. Again when the matter was posted on 2.4.2019 and 9.4.2019, since wife – P.W.1 was present and husband’s advocate was absent, the matter was kept pending till 3.30 p.m. As the cost imposed was not paid, husband’s evidence was taken as ‘NIL’ and cross-examination of P.W.1 was closed. Therefore, the present petitioner, who is the husband intended to file two applications – I.As.11 under Order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination and I.A.12 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the order dated 11.3.2019 and permit him to cross-examine P.W.1 and to lead evidence.
4. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the present petitioner - husband that the above two applications were not all allowed to be filed before the Family Court. The learned Counsel for the present respondent-wife submits that after the matter was adjourned, the party-husband came before the Court, but he could not file the applications. The fact that cross-examination of P.W.1 was closed on 11.3.2019 and evidence of husband’s side was closed on 9.4.2019 are not in dispute.
5. It is also not in dispute that the petition filed for divorce in the year 2014 and technically the matter is unnecessarily dragged before the Family Court. The Family Court ought to have permitted the husband to cross-examine P.W.1 and to lead further evidence instead of passing a non-speaking order. Without adverting to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for both parties, it is suffice to permit the husband to cross-examine P.W.1 on 16.10.2019 and proceed further to lead evidence, if any.
6. An affidavit dated 14.10.2019 is filed by the petitioner-husband to the effect that he will not seek further adjournment or he will not change the advocate again and he will co-operate for the timely completion of the trial in MC 2841/2014. The said affidavit is placed on record.
7. In that view of the matter, the Family Court is directed to permit the present petitioner, who is husband to cross-examine P.W.1 and to lead evidence subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- each. The Family Court is also directed to proceed and decide the case as expeditiously as possible as directed by this Court in the earlier W.P.No.33565/2019.
8. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the Family Court in proceeding with the case without seeking any adjournment as directed by this Court on 11.10.2019.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-