IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme Court

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