SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 36266

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
LALITHA KANNEGANTI
ARUN T G – Appellant
Versus
N S KAVYA – Respondent
WP 30414/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 30414 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

ARUN T.G.

S/O T GOVINDARAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.29, 2ND FLOOR

8TH MAIN, BINNY LAYOUT 1ST STAGE, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560040.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

N.S KAVYA D/O N.S. SUBRAMANYAM Digitally signed by MEGHA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS MOHAN Location: HIG H NO.75, C.P. ROAD COURT OF MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT KARNATAKA KARNATAKA- 563130.

…RESPONDENT THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AT MALUR, FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF SUIT IN M.C.NO.69/2022 FILED BY PETITIONER UNDER ORDER 13(1)(I- A) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT 1955, WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT, VIDE ANNX-A DATED 29.05.2020.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

a) Issue writ of certiorari directing the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge at Malur for speedy disposal of suit in MC.No.69/2022 filed by the Petitioner under order 13(1)(i-a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, within three months from the date of order passed by this Hon’ble Court, vide Annexure-A dated 29.05.2020.

b) Pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this court had passed an order on 05.06.2024 directing the family court to dispose of the MC expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments. Further this court had called for a report from the concerned Judge that why the MC is not disposed of even after one year.

3. The report that is placed before this court is not at all convincing. When there is an order by the court, if for any reason if they are not able to comply with the order, letter needs to be addressed by the concerned seeking time. But it is not done in this case, till this court has called for a report. This kind of approach cannot be appreciated.

Accordingly, this court is passing the following:

ORDER i. MC shall be disposed of by January, 2026 and no further time will be granted.

ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of iii. All pending I.As., in the petition shall stand closed.

SD/-

(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)

JUDGE TS CT:bms List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top