Allowed¶42

Sri D B Umashankar v. Smt H S Nagarathna @ Ramya

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2025WP/7918/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No.7918 of 2025 (GM-FC), decided 21.03.2025: husband's Article 227 challenge against Family Court, Tumakuru order dated 04.03.2025 (IA.No.V, S.311 Cr.PC.) refusing recall of PW.1 in S.125 Cr.PC. maintenance proceedings; earlier recall IA.No.IV had been allowed with Rs.2,000 cost but was not availed, leading to PW.1's cross-examination being taken as 'Nil'; recall allowed on bona fide grounds of counsel's Cancer/Chemotherapy; cross-examination directed to conclude by 04.04.2025 without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 04.03.2025 set aside; IA.No.5 allowed; petitioner-husband permitted to cross-examine PW.1 before the Family Court, Tumakuru, concluding on or before 04.04.2025 without further adjournments. ¶42

Sri D B Umashankar Vs Smt H S Nagarathna @ Ramya — Maintenance and Alimony | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 04.03.2025 of the Family Court, Tumakuru rejecting IA.No.V (filed under Section 311 Cr.PC. to recall PW.1 for cross-examination) with a cost of Rs.1,000/- ought to be quashed so as to grant the husband an opportunity to cross-examine PW.1, given the bona fide inability of his counsel (suffering from Cancer and undergoing Chemotherapy).

¶18

Court's answer

Considering that the counsel for the petitioner-husband was suffering from Cancer and undergoing Chemotherapy treatment, the reasons assigned for the absence were bona fide and genuine; therefore, an opportunity requires to be granted to the husband to cross-examine PW.1.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed; the order dated 04.03.2025 passed on IA.No.V in C.Mis.No.1/2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru is set aside; consequently IA.No.5 is allowed and the petitioner-husband is permitted to cross-examine PW.1 before the Family Court at Tumakuru.

¶43

Key takeaways

The petitioner-husband shall conclude the cross-examination of PW.1 on or before 04.04.2025 without taking any further adjournments; thereafter the Family Court shall proceed in accordance with law and dispose off the matter giving reasonable opportunities to the parties.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.), in a writ petition under Article 227 by the husband in his wife's pending Section 125 Cr.PC. maintenance case (C.Mis.1/2024, Family Court, Tumakuru), set aside the Family Court's order dated 04.03.2025 rejecting IA.No.V (under Section 311 Cr.PC.) seeking recall of PW.1 for cross-examination, which had been rejected with a cost of Rs.1,000/-. Holding that the counsel's suffering from Cancer and undergoing Chemotherapy treatment were bona fide and genuine reasons, the Court allowed the recall application and permitted the husband to conclude the cross-examination of PW.1 on or before 04.04.2025 without further adjournments.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7918 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI D.B.UMASHANKAR S/O.D.P.BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT DODDAPETE, 9^TH BLOCK INFRONT OF LADIES HOSTEL MADHUGIRI TOWN TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 132

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M.B.CHANDRA CHOODA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT.H.S.NAGARATHNA @ RAMYA W/O.D.B.UMASHANKAR D/O.S.M.SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

KHUSHI U. D/O.D.B.UMASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS MINOR REP. BY N/G H.S.NAGARATHNA @ RAMYA PETITIONER NO.1

¶14

BOTH ARE R/AT YOGISH BUILDING CHIKKAVEERAYYANAPALYA SIRA GATE TUMAKURU-572 106

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.V FILED UNDER SECTION 311 OF CR.PC. IN C.MIS.NO.1/2024 BY THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the husband aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04.03.2025 passed on IA.No.V

¶22

under Section 311 of Cr.PC. in C.Mis.1/2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, whereby the learned Judge of the Family Court rejected the application by imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- against the husband.

¶23

It is the vehement contention of Sri M.B.Chandra

¶24

Chooda, learned counsel for petitioner-husband that the wife had preferred a petition under Section 125 of Cr.PC. seeking maintenance. In the said proceedings, the husband filed an application in IA.No.V seeking to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination, when the matter was set down for arguments of the husband. It is

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025

¶26

further contended that the counsel for husband before the Family Court was undergoing treatment namely, Chemotherapy as he was suffering from Cancer and he was admitted to the Hospital, due to which, counsel for husband could not cross-examine PW.1. Hence, the application which was filed to recall PW.1 for crossexamination ought not to have been rejected by learned Judge of the Family Court. This aspect having not been considered, he submits that an opportunity be given to the husband to cross-examine PW.1 and consequently, allow the petition by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court.

¶27

Per contra, Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel for respondent-wife contends that the husband had fully cross-examined PW.1 and in fact, he filed an application in IA.No.IV for recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination, when the matter was posted for arguments by closing the evidence of both parties, which was allowed by imposing cost of Rs.2,000/-. However, instead of paying the cost

¶28

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025

¶29

and cross-examining PW.1, the husband sought time and thereby, left with no other alternative, the learned Judge

¶30

of the Family Court proceeded further in the matter by taking the cross-examination of PW.1 as 'Nil' and posted the matter for addressing the arguments on the main.

¶31

3.1 Learned counsel further contends that counsel for wife argued the matter and the case came to be posted for arguments of the husband, on which day, the husband filed one more application in IA.No.V seeking to recall PW.1 for cross-examination. Therefore, learned counsel for wife submits that when opportunities were given to the husband to cross examine PW.1, the same was not utilised and deliberately, it was protracted with an intention to cause delay, consequently, harassment to the wife. Hence, he seeks dismissal of this petition.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner-

¶33

husband and learned counsel for respondent-wife.

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025

¶35

The facts of the case with regard to the husband having filed IA.No.V when the matter was set down for arguments, is not in dispute. By virtue of the said application, apparently, the husband wants to crossexamine PW.1. The husband could not cross-examine PW.1 on the designated day is due to his counsel suffering from Cancer and undergoing Chemotherapy treatment and a document to that effect is placed before this Court vide Annexure-E, which apparently, is not disputed.

¶36

It is also not in dispute that on 07.02.2025, when the case was posted for further cross-examination, the husband neither paid costs nor proceeded with further cross-examination of PW.1 and therefore, the Family Court has taken further cross-examination of PW.1 as 'Nil'. Considering the fact that the counsel for husband was suffering from cancer and undergoing chemotherapy treatment, an opportunity requires to be granted to the husband to cross-examine PW.1 as the reasons assigned are bona fide and genuine for the absence.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:12058 WP No. 7918 of 2025

¶39

Under the circumstances, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) This petition is allowed;

¶42

ii) The order dated 04.03.2025 passed on IA.No.V filed under Section 311 of Cr.PC. in C.Mis.No.1/2024 by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Tumakuru, is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the application in IA.No.5 is allowed;

¶43

iii) The petitioner-husband is permitted to crossexamine PW.1 before the Family Court at Tumakuru;

¶44

iv) The petitioner-husband shall conclude crossexamination of PW.1 on or before 04.04.2025, without taking any further adjournments. Thereafter, the Family Court shall proceed further in accordance with law and dispose off the matter by giving reasonable opportunities to the parties.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶47

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

Sri D B Umashankar v. Smt H S Nagarathna @ Ramya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D B Umashankar v. Smt H S Nagarathna @ Ramya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Avinash C. Alias Kiran Vs Smt. Shruthi. D

Hamsa R Vs Siddalingaprasad

Sri Prashanth Kumar. D. Vs Smt. Kalavathi. R.

M.S.Shashidhar Vs Smt.Sowmya

Mr. Jason S Chella Vs Mrs. Lydia Nancy Prabha

Sri Bipin Kumar L M Vs Smt Deepa Gowda