SRI. RAVINDRA. M v. SANDYA KUMARI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
petition is disposed of with the following:
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Each Court has got liberty to post number of cases which it can attend on a particular day. Also there is no material on record to show that the Court without any justifiable cause granted adjournments. However, having considered the inconvenience projected by the…
Judgment
SRI. RAVINDRA. M S/O LATE PARAMESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O HALEPETE, KANTAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, PERIYAPAT TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571107. (BY SRI. ANIL R., ADVOCATE) AND: SANDYA KUMARI W/O SRI. RAVINDRA M., AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, DOOR NO. 5-124B3, VASUKI NAGAR, PUTTUR VILLAGE, SANTEKATTE POST, UDUPI-576101. DODDAMARAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT (V/C/O DATED 08.01.2026, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, UDUPI, TO DISPOSE OF M.C. NO.113/2024 WITHIN A FIXED OUTER TIME LIMIT, - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1050 WP No. 132 of 2026 HC-KAR ANNEXURE-A PREFERABLY WITHIN THREE TO FOUR MONTHS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Anil.R learned counsel the writ petitioner.
In the light of the limited relief sought for, this Court is of the view that issuance of notice to the respondent is not required.
This writ petition is filed seeking the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Udupi to dispose of M.C.No.113/2024 which is pending before it time bound.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner filed a petition for divorce i.e., M.C.No.3/2020 before jurisdictional Court at Periyapatna, Mysuru District. Respondent made her - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1050 WP No. 132 of 2026 HC-KAR appearance. Thereafter, she filed a transfer petition before this Court and this Court passed orders transferring the Case from the jurisdictional Court of Periyapatna to the Court at Udupi. On that the Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Udupi took up the case and re-numbered the same as M.C.No.113/2024. After the case was got transferred to the place where she stays, the respondent started taking adjournments and the petitioner is attending the Court on each and every date of adjournment incurring much expenditure. As the respondent is prolonging the matter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.VII seeking the Court to speed up the trial and dispose of the matter within stipulated time. The Court disposed of the said interlocutory application with an observation that endeavour will be made to dispose of the matter as early as possible. Learned counsel states that even after passing such an order, the Court is adjourning the matter on every date of adjournment at the request of the counsel for the - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1050 WP No. 132 of 2026 HC-KAR respondent. Learned counsel thereby seeks to fix an outer limit for disposal of the case.
Operative part
Each Court has got liberty to post number of cases which it can attend on a particular day. Also there is no material on record to show that the Court without any justifiable cause granted adjournments. However, having considered the inconvenience projected by the petitioner in attending the Court on each and every date of adjournment and as the case is pending for disposal since five years, this Court is of the view that a direction is required to be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the following: ORDER (i) The Court of Principal Judge Family Court, Udupi is directed not to grant adjournments and to take steps for disposal of M.C.No.113/*2024 time bound preferably within * Corrected vide Court order dated 20.01.2026 - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1050 WP No. 132 of 2026 HC-KAR a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. (ii) Registry to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court forthwith. Sd/- (DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: petition is disposed of with the following:
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.