IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No.1670 of 2026 Laxmidhar Kar …. Petitioner Mr. P.C. Mishra, Advocate -versus-

Sashmita Mohanty …. Opp. Party CORAM:

JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

ORDER

27.01.2026 (Hybrid Mode)

Order No.

01 .

1. The petitioner-husband in the marriage is before this Court seeking early disposal of the C.P. No.208 of 2017 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Khurda. 2. The C.P. was filed by the petitioner-husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of the marriage with the opposite party-wife. Earlier MATA No.59 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment in the said C.P. By order dated 10.07.2024, MATA was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and the matter was remanded to be considered afresh by the learned Judge, Family Court.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the initiation of the proceeding in 2017 already 9 years have passed. It is further submitted that the opposite party-wife is taking “unnecessary adjournments”. It is submitted that the petitioner has completed his evidence but the opposite party-wife in the marriage is taking time.

It is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court in disposing of the MATA had directed for disposal of the C.P. as expeditiously as possible.

4. On being asked whether the petitioner had filed any application before the learned Court in seisin indicating that the opposite party is taking unnecessary adjournment and if so what is the order passed therein, learned counsel for the petitioner upon instruction submits that there is no such application.

5. In considered view of this Court, at the instance of a particular litigant, a C.P. cannot be expedited when thousands of cases are pending before the selfsame Court for adjudication. For such view this Court relies on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(s).4758 of 2024: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi versus State of Maharashtra: 2024 INSC 899. Paragraphs of the said judgment relied upon are reproduced herein:

“Before we part with this order, every day we notice that in several orders passed by different High Courts while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine manner, the High Courts are fixing a time- bound schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts as in many Trial Courts, there may be older cases of the same category pending. Every court has criminal cases pending which require expeditious disposal for several reasons, such as the requirement of the penal statutes, long incarceration, age of the accused, etc. Only because someone files a case in our Constitutional Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after rejecting the prayer for bail, the Courts want to give some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to implement. Such orders give a false hope to the litigants. If in a given case, in law and on facts, an accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration without the trial making any progress, the Court must grant bail. Option of expediating trial is not the solution.

In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.’1 , this Court has held that in the ordinary course, the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Paragraph

47.3 reads thus:

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;” (under