Mausumi Behera Vs Tarakanta Das

2. The petitioner is the wife in the marriage also the petitioner before the learned Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in C.P. No.625 of 2022. The said C.P. has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 read with Section 7 of Family Courts Act,1984.

¶15

3. As has been stated in the writ application and also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering due to long pendency of the C.P.

¶16

4. In considered view of this Court, at the instance of a particular litigant, a Civil Proceeding cannot be expedited when thousands of cases are pending before the selfsame Court for adjudication.

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

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:

¶19

“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.

¶20

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;”

¶21

A direction which can be issued in exceptional circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution Bench. The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

Registry to forward soft copies of this order to Registrar Generals of all the High Courts with a request to them to circulate copies to all the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court.”

¶24

(Underlined to supply emphasis)

¶25

5. Regarding issuance of direction by the High Court to the courts which are in seisin of the matrimonial proceedings apart from the observations of the constitution bench and the subsequent decision : Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi (supra) reiterating the view as noted above, it would be apt to quote the observation of the concurring view of Mithal, J. at paragraph57 from High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2024) 6 SCC 267 (SCC Online print) :

¶26

“ 57. Sometimes, in quest of justice we end up doing injustice. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P) Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 686 is a clear example of the same. Such a situation created ought to be avoided in the normal course or if at all it arises be remedied at the earliest. In doing so, we have to adopt a practical and a more pragmatic approach rather than a technical one which may create more problems burdening the courts with superfluous or useless work. It is well said that useless work drives out the useful work. Accordingly, it is expedient in the interest of justice to provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in any civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time-bound, would remain in operation till the decision of the main matter or until and unless an application is moved for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering to the principles of natural justice either extending, modifying, varying or vacating the same.”

¶27

6. Significantly, above observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court by the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad ( supra ) reiterated in the subsequent decision rendered in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi ( supra ) was made in Sangram while discussing fundamental right of

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

accused persons to expeditious trial when they are incarcerated due to pendency of the criminal trial.

¶30

7. In considered opinion of this Court the principles laid down and quoted above shall also apply to other cases where trial/adjudication is pending and parties seek to expedite the proceeding, the present case being a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife in the marriage.

¶31

8 . However, it is directed, the petitioner if so advised may move the learned court in seisin of the matter for any appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as well as the Family Courts Act, the same shall be considered and necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law. It is further directed both the parties shall cooperate for expeditious adjudication of the pending matters without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

¶32

9 . The petition stands disposed of.

¶33

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge

¶34

Gs

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: GAGAN BIHARI SAMAL Reason: Authentication Location: ohc Date: 17-Mar-2026 18:48:02

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Mausumi Behera v. Tarakanta Das

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mausumi Behera v. Tarakanta Das

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

Bidyut Lata Das Vs Ganesh Prasad Das

Pramod Kumar Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

Kasturi Das Vs O.U.A.T.

Bramhananda Nayak Vs Jhili Swain

Prafulla Kumar Mishra Vs Annapurna Mishra

Sudarsan Mahakud Vs Hira@Bata Mahakud