- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7215 WP No. 2183 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2183 OF 2025 (GM-FC) BETWEEN: SHRI. DR. HARSHA T.R, S/O S. RAVIKUMAR. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A 3053, PRESTIGE TEMPLE BELLS, 364, 43 MAIN ROAD, RR NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. HEGDE SUMANA MAHADEV, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. MADHUSHREE BASAVARAJ W/O DR. HARSHA T.R. D/O BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/A NO. 172, WHITE HEAVEN ROAD, NE CALGARY, AB TIY6C7, CANADA - 910 019. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7215 WP No. 2183 of 2025 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE VI ADDL PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT BANGALORE TO EXPEDITE THE MATTER FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL FIXING TIME FRAME IN THE CASE NUMBER M.C 1641/20 PENDING ON THE FILE ENTIRE ORDER SHEET OF THE VI PRL. JUDGE FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner - husband, who had initiated petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ('the Act' for short) seeking for divorce against the respondent - wife. The petition was initiated on 28.05.2020. Pursuant to the filing of the petition, notice was issued to the respondent and she appeared through the power of attorney holder. Matter was referred to the Mediation, which was not successful. Thereafter, respondent filed her statement of objections and the matter proceeded by the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7215 WP No. 2183 of 2025 adducing evidence. Since the respondent did not cross- examine the petitioner, cross-examination was taken as Nil on 20.04.2023. Thereafter, it was posted for evidence of respondent, no evidence was adduced. Petitioner was thereafter partly cross-examined on 02.08.2023. Subsequently, the matter was posted for evidence of respondent, but on 06.01.2024 since the respondent remained absent, evidence of the respondent came to be taken as Nil and the matter was posted for arguments on the main petition. 2. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent has been unnecessarily protracting and prolonging the proceedings without participating in the petition and making use of the opportunity provided by the Family Court. She has in fact left India and gone to Canada in the year 2019 along with the child and she has been prosecuting the present divorce petition through her power of attorney holder, thereby it is the contention that the respondent is making all efforts to protract and prolong the proceedings to defeat the rights of the petitioner. Under the circumstances petitioner has filed the present petition seeking writ of mandamus for a direction to the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7215 WP No. 2183 of 2025 learned Family Court Judge to dispose of the petition expeditiously by fixing a timeframe. 3. This Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the respondent, as no adverse orders is passed against the respondent and so also no relief is sought against the respondent in the present petition, except seeking for a direction for expeditious disposal of the petition pending before the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore. 4. It would be relevant to extract Section 21B(1) and (2) of the Act, which reads as under: "21B. xxxxx (1) The trial of a petition under this Act shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interest of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the Court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. (2) Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent." - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7215 WP No. 2183 of 2025 5. As per the above provisions, the matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife requires to be disposed of within a time frame of six months. It is essential for the Family Court or the trial Court dealing in matrimonial disputes to conduct the trial and dispose of the matter expeditiously and endeavor to put an end to the ordeal suffered by both the parties. But in the present case, the petition which has been filed in the year 2020 has not seen light of the day in view of deliberate protraction of prolonging of the matter. Under the circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the matter by issuing the following directions. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed; ii) The learned VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore is directed to dispose of the matter in M.C.No.1641/2020 expeditiously within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order; - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7215 WP No. 2183 of 2025 iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter; and iv) The Family Court is at liberty to impose exemplary cost on both sides for unnecessary protraction of the proceedings and put parties to terms. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10 CT: BHK