IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.1230 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

BETWEEN:

SMT. LAVANYA S. P.

WIFE OF MR. BHARATH S.

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.81

7^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN AYR LAYOUT, SHETTIHALLI JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015 …PETITIONER (BY SRI MUKUND PRASAD, ADVOCATE, FOR;

Digitally signed by SOWMYA SRI PAUL FREDERICK, ADVOCATE)

DODDAMA RAIAH Location: HIGH COURT OF AND:

KARNATAKA S. BHARATH @ S. MOHAN KUMAR SON OF LATE SIDDALINGAIAH R. K.

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT THOTADA MANE BAGUR VILLAGE MATHIGHATTA POST NITTUE HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 223 ALSO AT NO.21, SHANTHALA NIVASA ARUN ICE CREAM BUILDING LAKSHMIPURA ROAD, DOMBARAHALLI MADANAYAKANAHALLI VIA BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-562 162 …RESPONDENT (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 19/1/2026, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE HON'BLE III ADDL. PRL. JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BENGALURU TO EXPEDITE THE PROCEEDINGS AND DISPOSE OF M.C. NO.5194/2023 WITHIN A TIME FRAME OF SIX MONTHS FIXED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (ANNEXURE-A).

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 Mukund Prasad, who represents Sri.Paul Frederick, learned counsel on record for the petitioner.

2. This writ petition is filed seeking the Court to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Court of III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore to expedite proceedings and to dispose of M.C. No.5194/2023, which is pending on its file fixing time frame.

3. Having considered the nature of the relief sought for, notice to respondent is dispensed with.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the wife of the respondent. Petitioner filed a petition seeking decree of divorce. The case was filed in the year 2023 and still the case is pending. Learned counsel thereby seeks a direction to the concerned Court to dispose of the case time bound.

5. A perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet reveals that the Court is making all its efforts to dispose of the case. When counter was not filed by respondent within the time granted, the Court imposed costs (vide order dated 30.03.2024). Also on few occasions the matter was called in the forenoon and again in the afternoon so as to facilitate the parties and their counsel to proceed with. Few instances to mention are on 22.04.2024, 20.08.2024, 14.11.2024 and 07.01.2025. Also number of interlocutory applications were filed including an interlocutory application by the petitioner herein for grant of maintenance and the said petition was also disposed of. No iota of truth is found that the trial Court is lethargic in dealing with the matter.

6. High Court cannot give directions to the trial Courts in each and every case fixing time limits for disposal of matters. In case where the particular Court is found not diligent in granting time or is granting adjournments without reasons, then definitely the High taken to be the managers of District Judiciary. Even on administrative side they can at best be termed to be coaches who guide the Judicial Officers to become masters of their Courts and leaders of their team. Presiding Officers of Courts are not subordinate employees. Each Judicial Officer is primarily a craftsman of his roster. Best results in any organisation can only be achieved by offering freedom to all stake holders. Of course power of superintendence and control will always be there, as that of a parent. But excessive supervision or control always end in disastrous results.

9. When cases are not disposed of quickly, parties to the litigation and advocates point their finger against the Judicial Officer. However, the reasons will be variety and sometimes beyond the rea