Dusmanta Kumar Das Vs Nirupama Nayak @ Das

1 . The petitioner-husband is before this Court seeking direction for disposal of C.P. No.138 of 2020 pending before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore.

¶16

W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 1 of 6

¶17

2 . The said C.P. has been filed by the petitioner-husband under section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized between the parties on 22.05.2011 and for grant of a decree of divorce.

¶18

3. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court with a similar prayer in W.P.(C) No.24089 of 2024, which was disposed of by Coordinate Bench, by order dated 27.09.2024. Copy of the said order has been annexed to the present writ application. The operative portion of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench at paragraph 4 is reproduced herein:

¶19

“4. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction there if there is any urgency in disposal of CP No.138 of 2020 stated to be pending before learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore, the Petitioner may move an application stating the grounds therein. If the application for early disposal of CP No.138 of 2020 is filed within a period of two weeks hence stating the urgency, the same shall be considered and disposed of within a period of three weeks thereafter giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore shall proceed with matter accordingly.”

¶20

4. Copy of the order sheet in C.P. before the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore starting with order dated 08.10.2024 upto order dated 16.01.2026 has been annexed to the writ application.

¶21

Referring to the said order sheet, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Opp. Party-wife-

¶22

W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 2 of 6

¶23

defendant before the learned Court is taking time unnecessarily without any reasonable cause.

¶24

5. Upon instruction, it is submitted that the petitioner has not yet filed any application invoking any provision of the Civil Procedure Code seeking interference of the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore when the petitioner/plaintiff has appeared and the Opp. Party/defendant has sought for adjournment without any reasonable cause. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is appraised of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of Utter Pradesh and others: (2024) 6 SCC 267 , wherein the following observations have been made:

¶25

“42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

¶26

43. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing outof-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy,

¶27

W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 3 of 6

¶28

cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time-frame. In a sense, no court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the courts concerned unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”

¶29

7. She is also made aware of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra: 2024 INSC 899: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526 , wherein the following observations have been made:

¶30

“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.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 4 of 6

¶32

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 timebound 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;”

¶33

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.

¶34

The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶35

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.”

¶36

(Underlined to supply emphasis)

¶37

8. Significantly, above observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad ( supra ) were reiterated in the subsequent decision rendered in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi ( supra ) were made while discussing fundamental right of accused persons to expeditious trial when they are incarcerated due to pendency of the criminal trial.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 5 of 6

¶39

9. 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 by approaching High Court, the present case being a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife in the marriage.

¶40

10. 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. Any such application if made shall be considered and necessary orders shall be passed in accordance with law.

¶41

It is further directed both the parties shall cooperate for expeditious adjudication of the pending matter(s). 11. The petition stands disposed of.

¶42

Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore to be placed on record of C.P. No.138 of 2020.

¶43

(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)

¶44

Judge

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 18-Apr-2026 19:34:19

¶47

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16^th April, 2026/Rajesh