Smt Vijaya M vs Sri A M Mahadevappa
2026 Latest Caselaw 2775 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Smt Vijaya M vs Sri A M Mahadevappa on 27 March, 2026

                             -1-
                                   WP No. 33035 of 2025



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                        BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
       WRIT PETITION NO.33035 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:

SMT. VIJAYA M.
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
W/O SRI. A.M. MAHADEVAPPA
R/AT NO.12, 1ST MAIN,
BASAVESHWARA HBCS LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 040.
                                          ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRI K.,ADVOCATE)

AND:
SRI. A.M. MAHADEVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
S/O G. LATE G. MALLAPPA
R/AT NO.12, 1ST MAIN,
BASAVESHWARA HBCS LAYOUT,
VIJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560040

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.13/14,
2ND CROSS,
VINOBA COLONY,
AVALAHALLI GIRINAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 026.
                                        ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V., ADVOCATE)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE V ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BENGALURU BY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED

BY THE PETITIONER FOR RECALL AND RE OPENING THE STAGE OF FURTHER CROSS OF PW1 IN M.C. 735/2016, AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-wife under

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India

challenging the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the

learned V Additional Family Judge, Bengaluru, in

M.C.No.735/2016, praying to quash the Order dated

12.09.2025 and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari for

reopening the stage and recalling of P.W.1 enabling the

respondent's counsel to cross-examine P.W.1 by allowing

the application I.A.No.6 and I.A.No.7 under Order XVIII

Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC in M.C.No.735/2016.

2. The petitioner before this Court is the wife and

respondent is the husband.

The facts leading to the filing of present petition are

as under:

3. The marriage between the petitioner-wife and the

respondent-husband was solemnized on 06.11.1981.

Husband had filed M.C.No.735/2016 against the wife for

the relief of divorce on the ground of cruelty, thereby to

dissolve the marriage as it is alleged that husband had

bigamous relationship with another woman by name

Jyothi. Wife entered appearance through her advocate

and contested the matter by filing statement of objections.

The above matter was posted for evidence of PW.1 on

18.10.2021. The wife preferred an application for

amendment. The Family Court rejected the application by

order dated 27.09.2021 and posted the matter for

evidence on the side of wife. In spite of granting several

opportunities and adjourning the matter for more than ten

occasions, the Family Court dismissed the petition for non-

prosecution.

4. The respondent-husband filed a petition before

Family Court, Misc.Pet.No.102/2022 praying for

restoration of the petition dismissed for default. The

original petition in M.C.No.735/2016 was restored by order

dated 02.08.2023 and posted the matter for evidence of

petitioner on 07.12.2023. Thereafter, the matter was

adjourned on several occasions and on 23.07.2024, as

husband was under treatment for cancer, he was unable to

meet his advocate and give instructions. On 23.07.2024,

wife gave her evidence and sought time for further chief of

PW.1 and the matter was adjourned to 20.09.2024. On

20.09.2024, the wife filed a memo along with certain

documents and got them marked as Ex.P8 to Ex.P11 and

case was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 on

05.11.2024.. On 05.11.2024, for want of instructions,

counsel appearing on behalf of husband sought for time

for cross-examination of PW.1 and matter was adjourned

to 02.12.2024. On 02.12.2024, husband could not give

instructions to his advocate due to ill-health and matter

was adjourned to 18.12.2024 on payment of cost of

Rs.500/-. On 18.12.2024, advocate on behalf of wife

appeared and went on with cross-examination of PW.1 in

part and matter was posted for further cross-examination

of PW.1 as a last chance on 24.01.2025. On 24.01.2025,

due to death of father of counsel appearing for husband,

he could not attend the court proceedings and matter was

adjourned to 24.02.2025 for cross-examination of PW.1 as

a last chance. Further, matter was adjourned to

12.03.2025 for cross-examination of PW.1 fixing date of

hearing as 05.04.2025. On that date, the respondent

could not provide necessary information for cross-

examination and his prayer for adjournment was rejected.

The matter was posted to 05.06.2025 for further evidence

of petitioner. The matter was adjourned to 15.07.2025 for

evidence of respondent, again adjourned to 30.07.2025.

On 30.07.2025, counsel for the respondent filed I.A.No.6

under order 18 Rule 17 and I.A.No.7 under Selction 151 of

CPC for recalling PW.1 and further cross-examination. The

Family Court by order dated 12.09.2025 rejected both the

applications I.A.No.6 and I.A.No.7 on the ground that

respondent had obtained several adjournments for cross-

examination. Being aggrieved by the order dated

12.09.2025 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge,

Family Court, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.6 and I.A.No.7, the

petitioner is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

unless cross-examination of PW.1 is reopened and the

evidence of defendants are not taken on record, the

matter cannot be decided on merits. It is further

submitted that the impugned order is directly discouraging

the parties to proceed to final arguments without cross-

examination of PW.1 and the evidence of the defendants.

It is submitted that the petitioner could not be present

before the court or give instructions to his advocate as he

was diagnosed with Cancer and had to undergo treatment.

Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order suffers

from infirmity and it has to be quashed and further prayer

for a certiorari for reopening the stage and recalling PW.1

enabling the respondent's counsel to cross-examine PW.1

by allowing applications I.A.No.6 and I.A.No.7.

6. Learned counsel for respondent submitted that

several opportunities were provided to the petitioner to

cross-examine PW.1 and for evidence of defendants. In

spite of that the petitioner has not utilized the opportunity

and did not come forward for cross-examination of PW.1

on one or the other pretext. Therefore, it is submitted

that the impugned order passed on I.A.No.6 and I.A.No.7

are just and reasonable and there are no reasons to recall

the said impugned order.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for the respondent and perused the

records.

8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of records, this Court is of considered

opinion that both the parties shall be permitted to file

objections to the affidavits of assets and liabilities. It

would meet the ends of justice if the matter is remitted

back to the Family Court for fresh consideration, in

accordance with law and while fixing the quantum of

maintenance, the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another

reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324, shall be followed.

9. In the result, the following order is passed:

i) Writ Petition is allowed and the matter

is remitted back to the Court of the V Additional

Family Judge, Bengaluru, subject to payment of

cost of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner/wife on or

before 11.04.2026, failing which, this order

would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner.

ii) The respondent/husband shall pay the

cost of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner/wife and

file proof regarding payment of cost along with

a memo before the Family Court.

iii) Both parties are directed to appear

either in person or through their respective

counsels before the Family Court on

15.04.2026 without further notice.

iv) The Family Court shall complete

examination as well as cross-examination of

P.W.1 within a period of one month from the

date of appearance of the parties.

v) Parties shall not seek any

adjournments and should co-operate with the

Court in disposal of the matter time bound.

vi) The Family Court shall give

opportunity to both the parties to file objections

to the affidavits of assets and liabilities

respectively and shall dispose of the matter as

expeditiously as possible.

v) In case of failure in compliance of the

directions, this order would not enure to the

benefit of the petitioner.

SD/-

(DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE

bnv