Dismissed

Venkatesh Chandrasekhar Ayyar v. Amuktamalyada Mulakaluri

Karnataka HC25 Mar 2024WP/7661/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought mandamus directing the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to expedite disposal of M.C.No.7500/2022 seeking dissolution of marriage. The court found the divorce proceedings were less than two years old and declined to fix any time frame, dismissing the petition while cautioning against unnecessary adjournments.

What the court decided

AI extract

Venkatesh Chandrasekhar Ayyar Vs Amuktamalyada… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12127 WP No. 7661 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 7661 OF 2024 (GM-FC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VENKATESH CHANDRASEKHAR AYYAR, SON OF SHRI. CHANDRASEKHAR AYYAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO. 32192, PRESTIGE FALCON CITY, ANJANADRI LAYOUT, BEHIND FORUM MALL, KONNANAKUNTE CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SIDDHANT S. DARIRA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

AMUKTAMALYADA MULAKALURI, WIFE OF SHRI. VENKATESH CHANDRASEKHAR AYYAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO. 24301, PRESTIGE FALCON CITY, ANJANADRI LAYOUT, BEHIND FORUM MALL, KONNANAKUNTE CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:12127 WP No. 7661 of 2024

¶17

LEARNED VI ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BENGALURU TO DISPOSE OF MC NO.7500/2022 EXPEDITIOUSLY WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD (ANNX-F).

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking directions to the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to dispose of M.C.No.7500/2022 as expeditiously as possible.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶22

petitioner/husband submits that the parties were married on 04.03.2004 and out of the wedlock, they are blessed with son and daughter who are 18 year old and 8 year old respectively. It is submitted that the disputes have started between the parties from 2008 and from there on, several proceedings were initiated and several criminal cases were filed by the respondent/wife. Some of them were taken till the Apex Court. It is submitted that after several rounds of

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:12127 WP No. 7661 of 2024

¶24

¶25

litigation before the Supreme Court, other Courts and this Court, finally the petitioner herein has filed M.C.No.7500/2022 seeking dissolution of marriage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the pending disputes between the parties right from 2008, this Court may issue mandamus directing the Court below to dispose of M.C.No.7500/2022 as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

This Court has observed that the litigation has started in the year 2008, but the divorce proceedings were initiated in the month of December 2022. It is less than two years old and this Court cannot direct the Court below

¶27

to expedite the hearing within a specified time period. Considering the pendency before the Court below and the fact that the matter that is instituted before the Court below is less than two years old, this Court finds no reason to direct the Court below to expedite the hearing.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:12127 WP No. 7661 of 2024

¶30

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, considering the long pendency of the proceedings, unnecessary adjournments should not be granted by the Court below.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK

Venkatesh Chandrasekhar Ayyar v. Amuktamalyada Mulakaluri

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Venkatesh Chandrasekhar Ayyar v. Amuktamalyada Mulakaluri

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jarin Vs Rajesh

Bharathi Vs Shaikh Nasruddin

Sannamma @ Chennamma Vs Sri. Ritesh

Xxxx (Vide Order Dated 28.06.2024) Vs Sri. Narayanan. v

Sri.Suneel Kumar Yenamandra Vs Smt.Shruthi

Anoop Sundararam Vs Amruthaveni Vishwanathan