M. Manjunath Vs Smt. B. Mamatha

M. MANJUNATH S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS RESIDING AT BEERJENAHALLI, KAIVARA HOBLI, SANTHAKALLAHALLI POST, CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 563 128

¶12

(BY SRI. PONNANNA M.B., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

SMT. B. MAMATHA W/O M.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶15

KUMARI SUSHMA D/O M. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:10440 WP No. 1204 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

KUMARI SMITHA

¶19

D/O M. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANGAMMAGUDI ROAD, 3^RD CROSS, M.V. EXTENSION, HOSKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH

¶22

VIDE ORDER DATED 19.02.2026)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.11.2025 PASSED BY HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAKOTE AT (ANNX-A) AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:10440 WP No. 1204 of 2026

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri.Ponnanna.M.B learned counsel for

¶30

petitioner.

¶31

Having gone through the entire material that is brought on record including the impugned order and on hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of without service of notice to respondents. Hence, notice to respondents is dispensed with.

¶32

This writ petition is filed seeking the Court to issue a writ of certiorari and to set aside the order that is rendered by the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Hosakote dated 28.11.2025.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondents claimed huge sum as maintenance from petitioner. Indeed respondent No.1 has got various sources of earnings. To establish the financial status

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:10440 WP No. 1204 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

of respondent No.1, petitioner is required to file relevant income tax returns and he should further examine himself as RW.1. Therefore, petitioner filed a petition to recall the evidence of RW.1 for the purpose of further chief examination. But the said application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel thereby seeks to quash the impugned order.

¶38

Petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was filed by respondents herein in the year 2013. More than 12 years passed, but the case is still pending. In the impugned order, the Court made a clear mention that petitioner herein took more than one year time to complete his evidence. The contents of impugned order also reveals that petitioner had filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. earlier and the same was allowed and thereby he was further chief examined and further cross-examined as RW.1. Petitioner also addressed the arguments and when the main petition was posted for orders, petitioner filed another application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. He also filed an application under Section

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10440 WP No. 1204 of 2026

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

294 Cr.P.C. With an observation that there are no grounds to entertain those applications, both those applications were dismissed. No ground is accorded as to why petitioner could not produce the relevant record at the earliest. Even when he filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which was allowed through order dated 23.06.2025, he has not taken the contention that is raised in the subsequent application. Proceedings cannot continue in eternity. There should be an end to litigation. Having perceived the fact that there are no grounds to entertain both the petitions, the Court through the impugned order has dismissed both the applications. The Court passed a reasoned order narrating all the details of the case and the manner in which petitioner conducted the proceedings. Having gone through the contents of the impugned order and perceiving the fact that petitioner availed number of opportunities to project his version, this Court is of the view that there are no grounds for intereferance. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following:-

¶42

6 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:10440 WP No. 1204 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) Writ petition is dismissed.

¶47

ii) As the writ petition is disposed of without service of notice to the respondents, the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Hosakote is directed to forward a copy of this order to respondents only for the purpose of giving notice to respondents about filing of this writ petition and its disposal.

¶48

iii) Registry to forward a copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith.

¶49

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶50

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

M. Manjunath v. Smt. B. Mamatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Manjunath v. Smt. B. Mamatha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Rajanna Vs Smt. Manjula

Smt. Lakshmidevi Vs Mr. Rakesh. T. R.

Sri. Manikandan Ramaswamy Vs Mrs. Edel Usha

Chirag Thomas Vs Teena Chandrashekhara

Sri. Santhosh Kumar. S. M. Vs Smt. Chitra. H. T.

Sri Shiva Kumar C v Vs Smt Shantha T N