SRI. MADHUKESWARA K.C vs SMT. AMRUTH. S

- 1 -
HC-KAR
R
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
WRIT PETITION NO.24556 OF 2026 (GM-FC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MADHUKESWARA K.C.,
S/O CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.360, RAGHAVENDRA BADAVANE
KAANAKERI SORABA, CHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE,
SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 429.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GOWTHAM D., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MOHANKUMARA D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. AMRUTH S.,
W/O MADHUKESHWARA K.C.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT T-2, 3RD FLOOR, NO.17,
TAVO ENCLAVE APARTMENT, PARK ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO QUEENS ROAD,
SWAMY SHIVANANDAPURAM, SHIVAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 051.
…RESPONDENT
Digitally signed
by AASEEFA
PARVEEN
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE
LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., SORABA, TO
EXPEDITE THE TRIAL AND DISPOSE OF M.C.NO.10 OF
STIPULATED PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN
THE 2026 WITHIN A INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri.Gowtham.D who represents Sri.Mohan
Kumar.D, learned counsel on record for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:
"WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most respectfully
prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus directing the Learned Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Soraba, to expedite the trial and dispose of
M.C.No.10 of 2026 within a stipulated period of one
month, vide Annexure-D, in the interest of justice and
equity."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
writ petitioner is the husband of respondent. Petitioner
initially filed a petition against the respondent seeking
restitution of conjugal rights. Said petition was allowed
and respondent/wife was directed to join the petitioner/
husband. However, respondent did not join. On that,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
petitioner filed MC No.10/2026 seeking decree of divorce.
The case is still pending before the trial Court. The case is
posted for cross-examination of Pw.1. There is every
requirement to order the trial Court to dispose of the
matter expeditiously. Hence this writ petition is filed.
4. Material available on record reveals that MC
No.10/2026 was filed by the petitioner on 06.03.2026.
Thus the case is 5 months old. Within these 5 months,
notice was issued to the respondent, respondent made her
appearance through her counsel, matter was referred to
mediation, mediator filed report that the matter was not
settled, the request of the respondent to grant time to file
statement of objections was rejected, the case was posted
for evidence of petitioner, thereafter IA No.1 filed by
respondent to receive objections was allowed on costs,
objections were taken on record, petitioner filed his
affidavit in lieu of chief examination, Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 were
marked, the request of the respondent to grant time to
cross examine Pw.1 was rejected, thereafter respondent

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
filed an application under Order 17 Rule 1 CPC and the
same was allowed and subsequently, IA Nos. 2 and 3 filed
by respondent were allowed on costs, the case was
reopened, Pw.1 was recalled for cross-examination, Pw.1
was cross-examined by respondent, respondent filed her
affidavit in lieu of her chief examination and when the
counsel for the petitioner sought time to cross-examine
Rw.1, granting time, the case was posted to 04.08.2026.
The flow of proceedings is clear as per the certified copies
of the proceeding sheets produced by the petitioner. Thus
the trial Court is making all its efforts for disposal of the
matter expeditiously. Therefore, this Court does not
understand why the petitioner has filed this writ petition
seeking a direction to the trial Court for expeditious
disposal of the case filed by him.
5. Writ jurisdiction cannot be involved to give
directions for expeditious disposal of cases which are
pending before the Courts below without there being a
justifiable or convincing cause. Directions to trial Courts

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
exercising writ jurisdiction can only be given sparingly that
too where absolute necessity in doing so are found. In the
case on hand, this Court does not find any grounds
whatsoever to issue a direction to the trial Court to deal
with the matter in much speedy way. Therefore, this Court
is of the view that there are no merits in this writ petition.
6. In several matters, where there are justifiable
grounds and where there are delays in disposal of cases,
High Court is giving directions to the trial Courts to take
up those matters either on day-to-day basis or to dispose
of them in a time-bound manner. In some of the cases
even time limit is fixed. Furthermore directions are being
issued to the trial Courts to submit reports regarding
progress of the cases and the reasons for non disposal.
Also when time limits are fixed and cases are not disposed
within given time, trial Courts will be under obligation to
submit requisitions seeking extension of time. Time is
being extended accordingly giving further directions, if any
required. In all such situations, trial Courts are being put

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
under tremendous pressure. In those matters where
directions are issued, even if the advocates does not come
forward to conduct the cases or seek time on account of
any reason what so ever or files interlocutory applications
which require disposal before taking up main cases, the
Presiding Officers of the Courts will undoubtedly become
stressful and the very thought that they would be
necessitated to file applications seeking the High Court to
grant further time for disposal of the cases will sometimes
make the judicial officers feel low or gloomy.
7. Judicial Officers cannot be overburdened by
entertaining this kind of writ petitions and imposing rigid
time limits for disposal of cases. Every Judicial Officer is a
master of his/her Court. Each case is unique. Sometimes it
may not fit within predetermined timelines. Time required
for adjudication depends upon several factors of which
cooperation of advocates and their willingness to assist the
Court in securing timely, fair and meaningful justice ranks

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
first. High Court cannot lay excessive emphasis on
numerical disposal and pressurise for speedy adjudication
of matters. We cannot make Judicial Officers compromise
the quality and fairness in judicial decisions. Justice is not
merely about speed. Judgments cannot be obtained by
click of button. Reaching the correct and fair conclusion
after due consideration of evidence is not an easy task.
Judicial officers must have sufficient time to conduct trail,
examine evidence, hear arguments and apply the law. No
doubt unnecessary delay cannot be permitted. But at the
same time one should remember that accountability can
always be achieved only when there is freedom from
undue pressure.
8. Whatever be the name we employ, working
professionals cannot be bulldozed through unreasonable
deadlines. Extraction of work by the controlling authority
which ever be the organization, should ordinarily be like a
sound from a musical instrument well played but never be
like a sugarcane crusher where every drop is extracted

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
ruthlessly from all veins leaving the sweet cane shapeless,
tasteless and useless.
9. In Judiciary, all undue pressure adversely
affects the quality of justice. Therefore, the objective
should be to eliminate avoidable delay while giving full
freedom to the Judicial Officers to conduct Courts in a
judicious way, allotting the time and space necessary for
careful judicial consideration.
10. In the case on hand, the proceeding sheet
reveals that the Presiding Officer of the Court of Senior
Civil Judge, Soraba has dealt with the matter in a manner
by which it has to be dealt with. When no reasons were
found to adjourn the case, learned officer passed
necessary orders in that regard. He rejected the request
for grant of time where no necessity to do so was found.
Also he has taken care to give fair opportunity to the
parties where parties who invited adverse orders filed
necessary interlocutory applications thereafter seeking fair

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42577
WP No. 24556 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010537622026
opportunity. This Court therefore, appreciates Presiding
Officer regarding the manner in which the proceedings are
being held and the endeavour to dispose of the case in a
time-bound manner.
11. Thus to conclude, having found no grounds to
dismissed
grant the relief claimed, the writ petition is .
Sd/-
(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)
JUDGE
NS
CT:TSM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33