SMT SHILPA vs SRI NAGARAJ

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58864
WP No. 3207 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010074272025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 3207 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHILPA
W/O NAGARAJ SHET,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1-3-34A1, GOKUL,
GUNDIBAIL WARD,
POST. KUNIBETTU,
UDUPI - 576102.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHARANU NANDOOR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.ANAND BEERANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. NAGARAJ,
S/O VINAYAK SHET,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCCU. PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/AT FLAT NO.1, BLOCK 501,
SALARPURAI SATVA LAUREL HEIGHT,
HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
MALLASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 005.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUDHEER K. N., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DTD. 16.01.2025 AT ANNX-J AS I.A.NO. 15 FILED
UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT UDUPI IN

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58864
WP No. 3207 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010074272025
M.C.NO.73/2021 CLUBBED WITH M.C.NO. 161/2021 AND TO
GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PART HEARD, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Sharanu, who represents Sri.Anand
Beerannavar, learned counsel on record for the petitioner
as well as Sri.Sudheer K.N., learned counsel for
respondent.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the Court to
set aside the order passed by the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Udupi, on I.A.No.XV in M.C.No.73/2021
clubbed with M.C.No.161/2021 dated 16.01.2025.
3. When respondent/husband filed a petition
seeking decree of divorce, writ petitioner/wife filed a
petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both the
cases were clubbed and the Court of Principal Judge,
Family Court, Udupi, recorded evidence. While both the
cases were at the stage of arguments, petitioner/wife filed

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58864
WP No. 3207 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010074272025
I.A.No.XV under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC seeking the
Court to recall RW.1 for further cross-examination. Family
Court dismissed said application and aggrieved by the
same this writ petition is filed.
4. Arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that the petitioner was subjected to
cruelty by the respondent. The petitioner is required to
establish her version about the acts of cruelty she met.
Respondent suppressed his assets and liabilities from the
initial stage. When the case was posted for arguments,
respondent submitted his assets and liabilities. Therefore,
necessity arose for the petitioner to cross-examine
respondent i.e. RW.1. Hence, she filed I.A.No.XV seeking
the Court to recall RW.1 for the purpose of further cross-
examination. However, without considering the necessity
of the petitioner to subject RW.1 to further cross-
examination, Family Court dismissed that application and
therefore, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel stated
that by allowing this writ petition, in case an opportunity is

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58864
WP No. 3207 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010074272025
granted to the petitioner to further cross-examine RW.1,
petitioner will be in a position to establish her version.
5. Vehemently opposing the submission thus
made, learned counsel for respondent contended that the
petition filed for restitution of conjugal rights as well as
petition filed for grant of divorce by the parties to the
proceedings are pending since more than 5 years. Only to
drag on the proceedings, petitioner/wife at the fag end of
the trial that too when the cases were posted for orders,
filed I.A.No.XV. Learned counsel also stated that the
statement of assets and liabilities was not filed by
respondent in these cases i.e. M.C.No.73/2021 and M.C.
No.161/2021. Statement of assets and liabilities was filed
in the maintenance case. That apart, these two cases are
pending on the relief sought for by the wife for restitution
of conjugal rights and the husband for decree of divorce.
In none of those cases petitioner/wife sought maintenance
or permanent alimony. That apart, sufficient opportunities
were granted to petitioner to cross-examine RW.1 and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58864
WP No. 3207 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010074272025
availing those opportunities, petitioner cross-examined
RW.1 at length. Therefore, Family Court rightly dismissed
the application and thus this writ petition is also liable to
be dismissed.
6. The impugned order reveals the flow of
proceedings. At para 11 of the impugned order Family
Court observed that the evidence in these cases
commenced in the year 2021 and was closed in the year
2023. Thereafter, I.A.Nos.11 and 12 filed by the petitioner
were rejected and prior to that I.A.No.VIII was dismissed.
On that, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.26856/2023 and
the said writ petition was dismissed by this Court.
Discussing on the aspect whether recalling RW.1 is
necessary for further cross-examination, Family Court
observed that when the petitioner has not claimed any
maintenance or permanent alimony in a divorce case,
there is no necessity for the parties to file assets and
liabilities and further the respondent admitted his
occupation and earnings. It is also mentioned that a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58864
WP No. 3207 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010074272025
finding was also given in Criminal Miscellaneous Case
No.84/2021. Further, it is also mentioned that an
observation was made in Criminal Miscellaneous Case
No.84/2021 that the petitioner is not entitled for
maintenance since she is a bank employee. Also there is a
clear mention that RW.1 was cross- examined at length by
the petitioner on 10.01.2023, 06.02.2023, 21.2.2023 and
08.06.2023 and that cross-examination was also
conducted with regard to the income of the respondent.
Observing thus, Family Court dismissed the Interlocutory
Application filed by the petitioner to recall RW.1 for the
purpose of further cross-examination. This Court does not
find any infirmity in the observations made or any illegality
in the conclusion arrived. Discussing at length with regard
to the merits of the matter, the Court declined to recall
RW.1. Admittedly, there should be an end to the litigation.
7. In case the petitioner intends to deny the
contents of the statement of assets and liabilities produced
by the respondent, she can do so in the matter in which

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58864
WP No. 3207 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010074272025
the statement of assets and liabilities were filed. In these
cases, admittedly respondent has not filed any statement
of assets and liabilities. Also the dispute is not in respect
of the genuineness in the statement filed regarding assets
and liabilities. Therefore, this Court is of the view that
there are no grounds to interfere with either the
observations made or the findings given in the impugned
order by the Family Court.
8. Resultantly, the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
AP
CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13