Disposed¶40

Sri G Sreekumaran v. Smt v Kumari Shylaja

Karnataka HC11 Jul 2025WP/15736/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: expedited disposal of family court case; mandamus; writ petition Article 226 Article 227; Hindu Marriage Act Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib); divorce petition M.C.No.3434/2024; VI Addl. Principal Judge Family Court Bengaluru; senior citizen litigant aged 77/79; litigation pending since 2007; 8-month time-bound direction; no unnecessary adjournments; no notice to respondent; restitution of conjugal rights dismissed; Supreme Court jurisdiction observation; GM-FC; Karnataka High Court; Lalitha Kanneganti, J.; 11 July 2025; NC 2025:KHC:25607.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru directed to dispose of M.C.No.3434/2024 within 8 months from receipt of copy of the order, without unnecessary adjournments; no notice to respondent; all I.As. in the writ petition closed.

Sri G Sreekumaran Vs Smt v Kumari Shylaja — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued for early disposal of M.C.No.3434/2024 pending before the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to dispose of M.C.No.3434/2024 within 8 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order, and unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

No notice is proposed to be issued to the respondent, since disposal of the case is in the interest of both parties.

¶39

Key takeaways

General practice stated in passing: this Court ordinarily does not direct the Family Court to dispose of matters prior to the year 2020, as there is a specific direction to give priority to matters till the year 2019.obiter¶32
Exception made on facts: the litigation has been pending since 2007 and the petitioner is of advanced age (stated as 79 years in the order; 77 years in the cause title), so the Court deemed it appropriate to direct time-bound disposal.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Lalitha Kanneganti, J.), Writ Petition No. 15736 of 2025 (GM-FC), decided 11.07.2025: A 77-year-old husband filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction for expeditious hearing of his divorce petition M.C.No.3434/2024 under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru. Noting the matrimonial litigation running since 2007 (HMOP.No.48/2007 in Tamil Nadu, M.C.No.1546/2007 for restitution, appeals CMA.No.16/2010 and CMSA.No.45/2010, and SLP.No.28055/2021 in which the Supreme Court observed the Tamil Nadu courts lacked jurisdiction), and although the Court generally does not direct disposal of Family Court matters after 2019 in view of the priority given to older matters, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Family Court to decide M.C.No.3434/2024 within eight months, without granting unnecessary adjournments, and issued no notice to the respondent.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:25607 WP No. 15736 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 15736 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI G.SREEKUMARAN S/O LATE N.GANGADHARAN, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS 3-61B, NEAR KRISHNANKOVIL THIPPRAMALAI KARUNGAL - 629 157 KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU

¶10

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.136/14 GRAPE GARDEN 1^ST FLOOR , 2^ND CROSS, EJIPURA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR – 560 047 BENGALURU

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. JANARDHAN RAO R.G., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT V.KUMARI SHYLAJA D/O VIJAYAMMA THANCKACHY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O. NO.136/14, (JANKI) GRAPE GARDEN, 2^ND CROSS, EJIPURA MAIN ROAD, VIVEKANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 047

¶17

…RESPONDENT

¶18

(V/O/D 11.07.2025, NO NOTICE TO RESPONDENT)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION FOR EXPEDITES HEARING OF DIVORCE PETITION CASE NO. M.C.NO.3434 OF 2024 FILED BY ME UNDER SECTION 13(1) (ia) AND (ib) OF THE HINDU

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:25607 WP No. 15736 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

MARRIAGE ACT PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, BENGALURU WITHIN A STIPULATED TIME FIXED BY THIS HONBLE COURT.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The present writ petition is filed seeking mandamus for the early disposal of M.C.No.3434/2024 pending on the file of VI Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶28

It is the case of the husband that he had filed HMOP.No.48/2007 seeking divorce in the Courts at Tamil Nadu and the wife had filed M.C.No.1546/2007 before the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The petition that is filed by the husband seeking divorce came to be allowed on 17.02.2010. Then, the wife had preferred appeal i.e., CMA.No.16/2010 came to be dismissed on 31.08.2010. Then the wife had filed second appeal CMSA.No.45/2010 and that came to be dismissed on 24.10.2010. The CMSA.No.45/2010 was allowed by judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010. Then, the husband had filed SLP.No.28055/2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:25607 WP No. 15736 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Court, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the Courts at Tamilnadu have no jurisdiction and he has to approach the Courts at Bangalore. The relief that is sought by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights came to be dismissed on 29.10.2018. Thereafter, he had filed the present M.C.No.3434/2024 seeking divorce before the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru.

¶32

Generally this Court is not issuing any directions to the Family Court to dispose of the matters which are prior to the year 2020, as there is a specific direction by this Court to give priority to the matters till the year 2019. In this case, the litigation has started way back in the year 2007 and the age of the petitioner is 79 years. Considering all these aspects, this Court deems it appropriate to pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34