Karnataka High Court
WP/28022/2026 of SRI R MANJUNATHA Vs SMT S VIJAYALAKSHMI on 17 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010609972026 NC: 2026:KHC:50703 WP No. 28022 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 28022 OF 2026 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SRI R MANJUNATHA S/O. R. VEERANNA, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 28022 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI R MANJUNATHA
S/O. R. VEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
AGRICULTURAL LABOURER,
R/O. WARD NO.1,
KANAHOSAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUDLIGI TALUK - 583 135
VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MUNIYAPPA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT S VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O. R. MANJUNATHA,
D/O. LATE SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT BEHIND NIMISHAMBA TEMPLE,
CHITRAGARA GALLI,
NOW R/O. NEAR PATALINGESHWARA TEMPLE,
KAAIPETE, DAVANAGERE - 577 001
…RESPONDENT
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THE HONBLE FAMILY
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
COURT AT DAVANAGERE IN CRL. MISC NO.6/2023 PERUSE THE
SAME HEAR THE PARTIES ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on IA No.4 dated 05.08.2026 in Crl.Misc.No.6/2023 on the file of the Family Court, Davanagere, the petitioner-husband is before this court.
2. The respondent-wife had filed Crl.Misc.No.6/2023. In that, the husband has filed an application requesting the court to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. That came to be dismissed. While dismissing the application, the Court, in paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, has categorically mentioned the dates, the number of months granted to the petitioner, and the petitioner's failure to cooperate with the trial, and has discussed these points in detail. It is observed that since the date of filing of the petition dated 04.01.2023, as on today, the petitioner has been parading before the court to seek relief against the respondent. But in spite of that, she has not got
HC-KAR
any relief due to the act of the respondent, who did not appear before the court for conducting his case properly. It shows that the respondent is negligent in conducting his case. Though sufficient opportunity has been given, it has not been properly used. In those circumstances, there is no reason to allow the application; accordingly, the application is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity. It is admitted that if one opportunity is given, on that day, he will conclude cross- examination. It is submitted that the court, on technical grounds, dismissed the application. Hence, the order impugned needs to be set aside, and an opportunity should be given to the petitioner.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record.
4. This Criminal Miscellaneous is filed in the year 2023. The court has, in detail, recorded how many days the petitioner is absent and how he has failed to file the objections. Belatedly, the objections were filed, he failed to cross-examine, the cross-examination was taken as nil, and the Court rightly
HC-KAR
observed that the petitioner is not vigilant in pursuing the matter. This Court cannot pass any orders and show undue indulgence in these kinds of matters. If an indulgence is shown, that would send a wrong signal to the litigants who want to abuse the process of Court. In those circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere. Hence, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All pending IAs. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE
BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11