Orissa High Court
Pritam Barik vs Mamata Rani Barik on 24 July, 2026
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20355 of 2026
Pritam Barik .... Petitioner
Mr. Niranjan Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
Mamata Rani Barik .... Opp. Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
24.07.2026
(Hybrid Mode)
Order No.
01. 1. The writ application has been filed by the petitioner
with the following prayer:
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court
would graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition,
issue Rule NISI in the nature of writ of mandamus or any
other writ/writs as deem fit and proper calling upon the
0pp. Parties to show cause as to why the learned Judge,
Family Court Baripada shall not be directed to dispose of
CP No.286/2024 with a particular period as would be
directed by this Hon’ble Court.
And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute;
And/or pass any other writ/writs, order/orders the
Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts &
circumstances of the case”
2. Though the matter is listed for fresh admission, in
view of the order that is going to be passed in the facts and
circumstances of the case, no notice is issued to the
opposite party-wife in the marriage. This Court is also of
the view that the order that is being passed, would be no
Page 1 of 5
way prejudicial to either of the parties to the present writ
petition.
3. The C.P. is filed by the present petitioner-husband in
the marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 for dissolution of the marriage.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the civil proceeding is kept pending and
direction should be issued to the learned Family Court for
expeditious disposal of the same.
In response, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
was requested to apprise whether any application has been
filed regarding the alleged strategy of the opposite party-wife
to delay the matter, drawing attention of the Court to pass
appropriate order and if so what is the order passed in the
said application. The learned counsel upon instruction
submits that no such application has been filed.
4. In considered view of this Court, at the instance of a
particular litigant, a Civil Proceeding cannot be expedited
when hundreds of cases are pending before the selfsame
Court for adjudication.
For such view, this Court relies on the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No(s).4758
of 2024: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi versus State
of Maharashtra: 2024 INSC 899. Paragraphs of the said
judgment relied upon are reproduced herein:
“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 thePage 2 of 5
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.
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.‘, 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)
Page 3 of 5
5. Regarding issuance of direction by the High Court to
the courts which are in seisin of the matrimonial
proceedings, apart from the observations of the constitution
Bench in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State
of Uttar Pradesh and others: (2024) 6 SCC 267, the
subsequent decision: Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi
(supra) reiterating the view as noted above is apposite. It
would be apt to quote the observation of the concurring view
of Mithal, J. at paragraph-57 from the judgment of the
constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad (supra):
“57. Sometimes, in quest of justice we end up doing
injustice. Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency (P)
Ltd. v. CBI, (2018) 16 SCC 299 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 686 is
a clear example of the same. Such a situation created
ought to be avoided in the normal course or if at all it
arises be remedied at the earliest. In doing so, we have to
adopt a practical and a more pragmatic approach rather
than a technical one which may create more problems
burdening the courts with superfluous or useless work. It
is well said that useless work drives out the useful work.
Accordingly, it is expedient in the interest of justice to
provide that a reasoned stay order once granted in any
civil or criminal proceedings, if not specified to be time-
bound, would remain in operation till the decision of the
main matter or until and unless an application is moved
for its vacation and a speaking order is passed adhering
to the principles of natural justice either extending,
modifying, varying or vacating the same.”
6. The above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court by
the Constitution Bench in High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad (supra) were reiterated in the subsequent
decision rendered in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi
Page 4 of 5
(supra) while discussing fundamental right of accused
persons to expeditious trial when they are incarcerated due
to pendency of the criminal trial, when so many trials are
pending for completion.
7. In considered opinion of this Court, the principles
laid down and quoted above shall also apply to cases where
trial/adjudication is pending and parties seek to expedite
the proceeding by approaching High Court, though several
such matters are pending before the trial Court; the present
case being a matrimonial proceeding between the
petitioner-husband and the opposite party-wife in the
marriage.1
8. 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, the same
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
matters.
9. The petition stands disposed of.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Radha
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 27-Jul-2026 18:41:43
Page 5 of 5
