Allowed¶47

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani v. Mrs. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2025WP/9672/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Pradeep Singh Yerur J, 08.04.2025: WP No. 9672 of 2025 (GM-FC), Samarth Vimal Jagnani v. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani @ Arzoo Ramgopal Jajodia - allowed. Mandamus under Art. 227 directing I Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to decide MC.No.6470/2022 (divorce, S.13(1)(ia) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) on or before 02.05.2025 day-to-day, honouring SC order dt. 16.12.2024 in SLP(C) 29810-29811/2024; S.21B(2) six-month disposal guideline held impracticable due to pendency but expeditious endeavour required; arguments already concluded.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to dispose of MC.No.6470/2022 on or before 02.05.2025 by taking up the proceedings on a day-to-day basis. ¶47

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani Vs Mrs. Arzoo Samarth… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to dispose of MC.No.6470/2022 on or before 02.05.2025 by taking up the proceedings on a day-to-day basis.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to decide MC.No.6470/2022 expeditiously, in order to honour the Apex Court's direction dated 16.12.2024 in SLP(C) 29810-29811/2024. +1 more

¶23

Court's answer

The petition is allowed; the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to dispose of MC.No.6470/2022 on or before 02.05.2025 by taking it up on a day-to-day basis.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

There is no legal impediment in allowing the petition, since the matter has reached almost finality with both parties having addressed arguments and nothing remaining except pronouncement of judgment.

¶39

Key takeaways

Although the Act contemplates disposal within six months, owing to overloading and huge pendency it is literally impossible for the Family Court to decide any petition within six months; nevertheless an endeavour must be made to decide matters expeditiously.obiter¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-FC) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - the petitioner-husband sought a writ of mandamus directing the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to conclude MC.No.6470/2022 (divorce proceeding under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) expeditiously, so as to honour the Hon'ble Apex Court's order dated 16.12.2024 in SLP(C) 29810-29811/2024 (Annexure-K). With both sides having completed their arguments and the matter posted only for reply arguments by the petitioner-husband, and noting that although Section 21B(2) contemplates conclusion of trial within six months, heavy pendency makes literal compliance impossible while an endeavour to decide expeditiously remains obligatory, the Court found no legal impediment, allowed the petition, and directed disposal of MC.No.6470/2022 on or before 02.05.2025 on a day-to-day basis.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15146 WP No. 9672 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO.9672 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

MR.SAMARTH VIMAL JAGNANI S/O.VIMAL JAGNANI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS OCC: SERVICE R/AT FLAT NO.302, BALAJI TOWERS JAISUKHLAL MEHTA ROAD SANTACRUZ (WEST) MUMBAI-400 054

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI DINESH D.TIWARI FOR SRI GAIKWAD PULKESHI SHIVRAJ SINH, ADVOCATES)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MRS.ARZOO SAMARTH JAGNANI @ ARZOO RAMGOPAL JAJODIA W/O.SAMARTH JAGNANI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/AT JAJODIA VILLA MEGH MALHAR COMPLEX NEAR ROYAL CHALLENGE RESTAURANT OFF. GEN A.K.VAIDYA MARG GOREGAON EAST MUMBAI-400 063

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADVOCATE)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT I ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS IN MC.NO.6470/2022 ON DAY TO DAY

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:15146 WP No. 9672 of 2025

¶17

BASIS IN ORDER TO HONOUR THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-K IN SLP(C) 29810-29811/2024.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner-husband

¶22

against the respondent-wife seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,

¶23

Bengaluru, to decide the proceedings in MC.No.6470/2022 expeditiously.

¶24

Learned counsel for respondent-wife, who is present before the Court submits that as he has also filed another petition in WP.No.3967/2025, he takes notice of

¶25

this petition. He submits that he does not have much objection in expeditious disposal of the matter provided

¶26

the petitioner-husband complies with the requirements as is ordered in the Coordinate petition filed by him, wherein

¶27

the petitioner-wife filed an application seeking production

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:15146 WP No. 9672 of 2025

¶30

of certain documents from the respondent-husband, which

¶31

is rejected by the Family Court.

¶32

Considering the fact that the matter before the Family Court is emanating from the proceedings under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Presently, the matter is set down for arguments to be addressed by learned counsels. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that he has completed his arguments and learned counsel for respondent submits that he has also filed his written arguments. Therefore, nothing much remains in the matter to be done, except the Family Court to pronounce the judgment based on the materials on record, both oral and documentary and also the arguments submitted by the parties.

¶33

It is relevant to extract Section 21B(2) of the Act, which reads under:

¶34

"21B. xxxxx

¶35

(2) Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:15146 WP No. 9672 of 2025

¶38

months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent."

¶39

Under the circumstances, I do not find any legal impediment in allowing this petition for a direction to I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to dispose off the proceedings in MC.No.6470/2022 expeditiously.

¶40

The Act, though contemplates disposal of the petition filed under the provisions of the Act within a period of six months, due to overloading of matters and huge number of pendency of cases, it is literally impossible for the Family Court to decide any petition within six months. Nevertheless, an endeavour will have to be made

¶41

by the Family Court to decide the matter expeditiously. However, in the present case on hand, I am in agreement with learned counsel for petitioner-husband that since the matter has reached almost finality and both parties have

¶42

addressed arguments, the matter shall be decided expeditiously by I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court,

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15146 WP No. 9672 of 2025

¶44

Bengaluru and pronounce the orders in accordance with law.

¶45

In view of the above discussions, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) This petition is allowed ; ii) I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, is directed to dispose off the matter in MC.No.6470/2022 on or before 02.05.2025 by taking up the same on day-to-day basis, as most of the requirements in the proceedings are completed and it is now posted for reply of arguments by the petitioner-husband;

¶48

iii) Ordered accordingly.

¶49

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶50

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani v. Mrs. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Samarth Vimaljagnani v. Mrs. Arzoo Samarth Jagnani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. C Mahesh Kumar Vs State by Paper Town Ps

The Manager Reliance Gic Ltd. Vs Siddalingaswamy

Smt Sandhya a P Vs Sri M Hemananda

Mr Ram Sudhir Lad Vs Mrs Pooja Ramakrishna Hegde

Sri Girish Ganganagaiah Vs Smt Shwetha D Rao

Arzoo Samarth Jagnani Vs Smarth Vimal Jagnani