Orissa High Court
Dusmanta Kumar Das vs Nirupama Nayak @ Das … … Opp. Party on 16 April, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026
An application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution
of India.
---------------
Dusmanta Kumar Das ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Nirupama Nayak @ Das ... ... Opp. Party
Advocates appeared in the case:
For Petitioner : Ms. Ashwariya Dash,
Advocate
For Opp. Party :
---------------
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
——————————————————————————
Decided on 16th April, 2026
——————————————————————————
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The petitioner-husband is before this Court seeking
direction for disposal of C.P. No.138 of 2020 pending before
the learned Judge, Family Court, Balasore.
W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 1 of 6
2. The said C.P. has been filed by the petitioner-husband
under section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 seeking dissolution of marriage solemnized between
the parties on 22.05.2011 and for grant of a decree of
divorce.
3. Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court with
a similar prayer in W.P.(C) No.24089 of 2024, which was
disposed of by Coordinate Bench, by order dated
27.09.2024. Copy of the said order has been annexed to the
present writ application. The operative portion of the order
passed by the Coordinate Bench at paragraph 4 is
reproduced herein:
“4. Considering the submission of learned counsel
for the Petitioner, this Court disposes of the writ
petition with a direction there if there is any urgency
in disposal of CP No.138 of 2020 stated to be
pending before learned Judge, Family Court,
Balasore, the Petitioner may move an application
stating the grounds therein. If the application for
early disposal of CP No.138 of 2020 is filed within a
period of two weeks hence stating the urgency, the
same shall be considered and disposed of within a
period of three weeks thereafter giving opportunity
of hearing to the parties concerned and learned
Judge, Family Court, Balasore shall proceed with
matter accordingly.”
4. Copy of the order sheet in C.P. before the learned
Judge, Family Court, Balasore starting with order dated
08.10.2024 upto order dated 16.01.2026 has been annexed
to the writ application.
Referring to the said order sheet, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the Opp. Party-wife-
W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 2 of 6
defendant before the learned Court is taking time
unnecessarily without any reasonable cause.
5. Upon instruction, it is submitted that the petitioner
has not yet filed any application invoking any provision of
the Civil Procedure Code seeking interference of the learned
Judge, Family Court, Balasore when the petitioner/plaintiff
has appeared and the Opp. Party/defendant has sought for
adjournment without any reasonable cause.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is appraised of the
decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State
of Utter Pradesh and others: (2024) 6 SCC 267, wherein
the following observations have been made:
“42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not
normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of
cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency
of various categories of cases pending in every
court, including High Courts, is different. The
situation at the grassroots level is better known to
the Judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the
issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases
should be best left to the courts concerned. The
orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases
should be passed only in exceptional circumstances
to meet extraordinary situations.
43. There is another important reason for adopting
the said approach. Not every litigant can easily
afford to file proceedings in the constitutional courts.
Those litigants who can afford to approach the
constitutional courts cannot be allowed to take
undue advantage by getting an order directing out-
of-turn disposal of their cases while all other
litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to
come. The courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy,
W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 3 of 6
cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of
the other courts by directing that only certain cases
should be decided out of turn within a time-frame. In
a sense, no court of law is inferior to the other. This
Court is not superior to the High Courts in the
judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High
Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a
rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit
is concerned, it should be best left to the courts
concerned unless there are very extraordinary
circumstances.”
7. She is also made aware of the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v.
State of Maharashtra: 2024 INSC 899: 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3526, wherein the following observations have
been made:
“Before we part with this order, every day we notice
that in several orders passed by different High Courts
while rejecting the bail applications, in a routine
manner, the High Courts are fixing a time-bound
schedule for the conclusion of the trials. Such directions
adversely affect the functioning of the Trial Courts as in
many Trial Courts, there may be older cases of the
same category pending. Every court has criminal cases
pending which require expeditious disposal for several
reasons, such as the requirement of the penal statutes,
long incarceration, age of the accused, etc. Only
because someone files a case in our Constitutional
Courts, he cannot get out of turn hearing. Perhaps after
rejecting the prayer for bail, the Courts want to give
some satisfaction to the accused by fixing a time-bound
schedule for trial. Such orders are difficult to
implement. Such orders give a false hope to the
litigants. If in a given case, in law and on facts, an
accused is entitled to bail on the ground of long
incarceration without the trial making any progress, the
Court must grant bail. Option of expediating trial is not
the solution.
W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 4 of 6
In paragraph 47.3 of the decision of a
Constitution Bench of in the case of ‘High Court Bar
Association, Allahabad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Ors.’,1 this Court has held that in the ordinary course,
the Constitutional Courts should refrain from fixing a
time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending
before any other Courts. Paragraph 47.3 reads thus:
“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course,
should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the
disposal of cases pending before any other courts.
Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-
bound disposal of cases only in exceptional
circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of
cases should be best left to the decision of the courts
concerned where the cases are pending;”
A direction which can be issued in exceptional
circumstances is being routinely issued by High Courts
without noticing the law laid down by the Constitution
Bench.
The Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
Registry to forward soft copies of this order to
Registrar Generals of all the High Courts with a request
to them to circulate copies to all the Hon’ble Judges of
the High Court.”
(Underlined to supply emphasis)
8. Significantly, above observation of the Hon’ble Apex
Court of the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar
Association, Allahabad (supra) were reiterated in the
subsequent decision rendered in Sangram Sadashiv
Suryavanshi (supra) were made while discussing
fundamental right of accused persons to expeditious trial
when they are incarcerated due to pendency of the criminal
trial.
W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 5 of 6
9. In considered opinion of this Court the principles laid
down and quoted above shall also apply to other cases where
trial/adjudication is pending and parties seek to expedite the
proceeding by approaching High Court, the present case
being a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner-husband
and the opposite party-wife in the marriage.
10. However, it is directed, the petitioner if so advised may
move the learned court in seisin of the matter for any
appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure as well as the Family Courts Act. Any such
application if made shall be considered and necessary orders
shall be passed in accordance with law.
It is further directed both the parties shall cooperate for
expeditious adjudication of the pending matter(s).
11. The petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order shall be forwarded to the learned
Judge, Family Court, Balasore to be placed on record of C.P.
No.138 of 2020.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 18-Apr-2026 19:34:19
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 16th April, 2026/Rajesh
W.P.(C) No.9152 of 2026 Page 6 of 6
[ad_1]
Source link
