Husband sought to overturn the Family Court's decision allowing his wife further cross-examination of PW1, arguing it delayed proceedings already under a court-fixed deadline. The High Court declined interference, noting substantial justice outweighed time constraints, and directed both parties to proceed per the established timeframe.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:37184 WP No. 23642 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24475 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 23642 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 24475 OF 2024 (GM-FC)
IN WP No. 23642/2024
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHA MURTHY K., S/O SRI. KADARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.148, KULUME BEEDI, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI.K.S.KARTHIK KIRAN, FOR SRI.NAGARAJ R., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
MEENA.L., W/O SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.56, MUNISANJEEVAPPA LAYOUT JARAGANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 078
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R. MADAWAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 20.08.2024 PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL FAMILY JUDGE, BANGALORE IN G AND WC NO. 113/2020.
NC: 2024:KHC:37184 WP No. 23642 of 2024 C/W WP No. 24475 of 2024
IN WP NO. 24475/2024
BETWEEN:
NARASIMHA MURTHY K., S/O SRI KADARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.148, KULUMEBEEDI, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 062.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KARTHIK KIRAN FOR SRI.NAGARAJ R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
MEENA L., W/O SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.56, MUNISANJEEVAPPA LAYOUT, JARAGANAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 078
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNA R MADAWAL., ADVOCATE)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:20.08.2024 PRODUCED IN ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HONBLE II ADDITIONAL PRL. FAMILY JUDGE, BANGALORE IN MC NO.1537/2018 UPON THE APPLICATION IN IA NOS.19 AND 20.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.Nos.18 and 19 in
G&WC.No.113/2020 dated 20.08.2024 by the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, the petitioner/
husband is before this Court by filing W.P.No.23642/2024 and 24475/2024.
the respondent/wife is dragging on the matter and the Trial Court is also granting time liberally. The impugned order before this Court is an order in I.A.Nos.18 and 19 in G&WC.
No.113/2020 and in I.A.Nos.19 and 20 in M.C.No.1537/2018, wherein the wife had filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC and sought permission for further cross examination of PW1. It is stated that the advocate was not keeping well and could not proceed with further cross examination of PW1 and if the applications are not allowed, the wife will be put to hardship and prayed to allow the application. The petitioner/ husband herein has raised his objections and also had brought to the notice of the Trial Court that the order passed by this Court. The Trial Court had allowed the application and while allowing the application, the Trial Court had observed that the petition is filed by the husband declaring that he is the natural guardian of his children and also for permanent custody. The respondent/wife had filed strong objections and made several allegations. In this situation, if the applications are dismissed, the wife will be put to more hardship and injury and according to the respondent/wife, she is ready and willing to join matrimonial home. Further, the respondent/wife is taking care of the wellbeing of her children. Hence, there are no grounds to reject the application and the Trial Court had also observed that the husband is having every right to put his defence against the
respondent by way of cross examination and accordingly, the Court had allowed the application and posted the matter to 28.08.2024 for further cross examination of PW1, aggrieved thereby the husband is before this Court.
not proceeding with the matter in spite of that, the application that is filed by them is allowed. He submits that the Trial Court ought not to have granted the adjournments to the respondent and ought to have proceeded with the matter. Now again, by virtue of this order, the matter would be further delayed and as per the timeline fixed by this Court, the Trial Court will not be able to complete the hearing.
Judge, Family Court, Bangalore. Looking at the report placed by the Learned Judge, the Learned Judge is already burdened with several cases and in eleven cases the time frame is already fixed by this Court. In the process of disposing the matters in a time bound manner, the Courts also have to consider the interests of the parties. Time alone is not the criteria ultimately substantial justice should be delivered to the parties. When the application came before the Family Court and the Court exercising the discretion had felt that this is the case where unless an opportunity is given to the wife, it would cause prejudice to the wife. In the considering opinion of this Court, this Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India will not interfere with such a discretion exercised by the Learned Judge and this Court is inclined to pass the following,
ORDER
i. The Learned Judge had already addressed a letter to this Court seeking further time to conclude the proceedings and as per the said time frame fixed by the Court, the Trial Court shall dispose off the matters.
SD/(LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
1 issue framed by the court
Should the writ petitions interfere with the Family Court's discretion in allowing the wife's applications for further cross-examination of PW1 despite a court-imposed timeline?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Narasimha Murthy K.
Meena L.
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
