Karnataka High Court
Sri Chakradhar V vs Smt Vemulapalli Lalitha @ Lalitha ... on 13 February, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6827
WP No. 1639 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1639 OF 2025 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. CHAKRADHAR V.,
S/O LATE SRI. VEMULAPALLI BABU RAO,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 714-C,
8TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS,
B BLOCK, VINAYAKANAGAR,
HAL POST,
KONENA AGRAHARA,
BANGALORE - 560017.
...PETITIONER
(BY DR. G.S. SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE A/W
SMT. CHANDANI G.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by KAVYA R
Location: High SMT. VEMULAPALLI LALITHA @
Court of LALITHA MAHAMKALI,
Karnataka D/O M. CHANDRASEKAR,
W/O SRI. CHAKRADHAR V
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.13, SURAJ ENCLAVE,
1ST CROSS, ABBIGERE, SHETTY HALLI,
WARD NO.12,
BANGALORE 560 090
...RESPONDENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6827
WP No. 1639 of 2025
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
HONBLE IV ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT,
BENGALURU (RESPONDENT NO.1) TO EXPEDITE THE TRIAL IN
G AND WC.NO.25/20220 PENDING ON THEIR FILE 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, who had initiated a petition under Section 6(a) of the Hindu, Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 r/w Section 7 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 before the Family Court at Bengaluru against the respondent-wife.
2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a writ of mandamus for a direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru to dispose of the petition in G & W.C. No. 25/2020 expeditiously being dissatisfied with the slow progress as the petition was filed in the year 2020, no -3- NC: 2025:KHC:6827 WP No. 1639 of 2025 outcome has come out even as of 2025. Hence, the present petition for expeditious disposal.
3. This Court does not find the need for issuance of notice to respondent as no relief is sought against the respondent, so also no adverse orders is passed by this Court against the respondent.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he has filed the petition to declare himself to be the guardian and to restrain the respondent, who is forcefully depriving the petitioner from the company of the minor child. The custody petition has been filed on 21.01.2020. Upon appearance, parties have filed the statement of objections. Presently, the case is posted for cross-examination of RW.1 before the Family Court.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that for one reason or the other, time is being sought by the respondent and thereby, the proceedings are not being concluded at the earliest. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:6827 WP No. 1639 of 2025
6. On perusal of the order sheet, it is seen that matter was posted for cross-examination of RW.1 on 28.05.2024. Thereafter, due to absence of RW.4 the matter was adjourned and again, the petitioner has remained absent along with his counsel. Hence, the cross- examination could not be completed. On the previous date of hearing, that is on 07.12.2024 petitioner and counsel were present, but respondent was absent. Matter was adjourned to 04.02.2025 and presently, the case is posted to 25.03.2025 for cross-examination of respondent. Since the petition is initiated in the year 2020, the matrimonial proceedings in any of the Courts be Family Court or in the Civil Court requires to be decided expeditiously, as the question involved is of custody and visiting rights of the either of the parents with regard to the minor child, the focus being on the welfare and interest of the minor child.
7. Under the above circumstances, I am in agreement with learned counsel for the petitioner that matter requires to be disposed of expeditiously. It would -5- NC: 2025:KHC:6827 WP No. 1639 of 2025 not cause any hardship or inconvenience to the respondent, if an order is passed directing the Family Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously by giving proper opportunity to both the parties. In the present case on hand, the stage of the case before the Family Court is for cross-examination of RW.1. Therefore, this matter requires to be allowed.
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:-
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to dispose of the case in G & W.C. No. 25/2020 expeditiously within an outer limit of six months.
(iii) The Family Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter in a time bound manner stated herein above.-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:6827 WP No. 1639 of 2025
(iv) The Family Court shall provide reasonable opportunity to both the parties.
(v) The Family Court is at liberty to impose cost on both the parties if unnecessary adjournments are sought.
(vi) Both the parties shall co-operate for expeditious disposal of the case.
(vii) It is made clear this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25 CT:SNN