Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Karnataka High Court: "Life is too short to be little" - Expeditious Resolution of Matrimonial Cases Upheld as a Constitutional Right

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Krishna S Dixit, delivered a landmark judgement on Writ Petition No. 14769 of 2023 (GM-FC) on July 26, 2023. The case brought to light the distressing issue of prolonged pendency of matrimonial cases in courts, and the court's verdict emphasized the constitutional guarantee of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Representing the petitioner, Sri. N Rajeev, Advocate Sri. Basavaraj R Bannur ardently presented the case before the court. The petitioner sought the dissolution/nullity of marriage with the respondent, Smt. C. Deepa, invoking Section 13(1) (IA) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

Justice Dixit's judgment eloquently highlighted the urgency of resolving matrimonial disputes expeditiously. Quoting the renowned British historian, Thomas Carlyle, the court reiterated, "Life is too short to be little." The court observed that undue delays in matrimonial cases have a severe impact on the lives of the parties involved, emphasizing the need to grant them an opportunity to move on and rebuild their lives.

Recognizing the paramount importance of timely justice, the court dispensed with notice to the respondent, assuring her of a fair opportunity to participate in the trial. The judgment directed the Family Court Judge to expedite the trial and disposal of the seven-year-old case within an outer limit of three months.

The verdict also addressed the wider issue of expediting similar cases in the future, as the court instructed the Registrar General to circulate the judgment among concerned circles. This move aims to prevent litigants from unnecessarily seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of their cases.

The ruling of the Karnataka High Court sets a precedent for other courts across the country to consider the urgency of matrimonial cases and uphold the right to speedy justice. This landmark decision reaffirms the principle that courts should make all efforts to promptly resolve matrimonial disputes to enable the parties involved to move forward with their lives.

 Date of Decision:26th July, 2023

SRI. N RAJEEV vs  SMT. C. DEEPA,

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/NRajeev_Vs_CDeepa_28July23_Karnt.HC_.pdf"]

Latest Legal News