Divorce Case Delayed By Over Five Years: Karnataka HC Fines Wife Rs 10,000 For Stalling Hearing
Justice Dr Chilakuru Sumalatha bench was hearing a woman's plea challenging Family Court's order that dismissed her interim application to recross-examine witnesses and delay proceedings.
Published : February 26, 2026 at 1:00 PM IST
By Ramesha M
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court has imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on a woman for repeatedly stalling the hearing of her husband’s divorce petition and wasting judicial time for over five years.
In a significant order on delays in matrimonial litigation, the court clarified that judicial proceedings cannot be conducted according to the convenience or wishes of litigants and that neither the Family Court nor the High Court can allow cases to be endlessly adjourned on the pretext of interim applications.
The order was passed by a bench of Justice Dr Chilakuru Sumalatha on February 9 while hearing a petition filed by a woman from Kanakapura in Ramanagara district. She had challenged a Family Court order that dismissed her interim application seeking permission to recross-examine witnesses and further delay the proceedings.
Case Dates Back To 2019
According to the court records, the husband had filed a divorce petition before the Family Court on April 4, 2019. After the notice was issued, the wife appeared through her counsel on October 19, 2019. However, she failed to file her objections within the stipulated time. As a result, the Family Court, in an order dated June 22, 2022, recorded that cross-examination could not be conducted.
Subsequently, the wife filed an interim application seeking permission to file objections and to conduct cross-examination afresh. The Family Court allowed this request. Even after securing that relief, she sought repeated adjournments to postpone cross-examination. The court eventually appointed a court commissioner to proceed with the matter. Challenging this, the wife filed another interim application, which was dismissed by the Family Court after which, she approached the High Court.
However, the High Court set aside the order appointing the court commissioner and directed that the matter be proceeded with expeditiously without delay on the wife’s part.
Despite this, the woman again sought reconsideration and renewed cross-examination, along with further adjournments. That interim application too was dismissed by the Family Court, prompting another petition before the High Court.
Can't Postpone Hearing As Interim Applications Are Filed: HC
After examining the records and hearing both sides, the High Court observed that the woman had been filing interim applications one after another, leading to repeated adjournments before both the Family Court and the High Court. The bench observed that it cannot adopt a liberal approach to indefinitely postpone hearings merely because interim applications are filed. It said that proceedings cannot be conducted according to the wishes of parties and that provisions under the Family Courts Act and the Code of Civil Procedure should not be misused to obstruct trial or cause inconvenience to the opposite party and the court.
The bench remarked that if cases are conducted in such a manner, it would become impossible to dispose of any matter even within a decade in the Indian judicial system. It described the petitioner’s conduct as a violation of legal discipline and termed the situation unfortunate.
The court also noted that despite specific directions from the High Court to proceed with cross-examination, the wife did not cooperate and showed complete indifference toward expeditious disposal of the case. The Family Court, frustrated by her conduct, had dismissed the interim application. The High Court said the Family Court’s handling of the proceedings was commendable and that there was no reason to interfere with its order.
During the hearing, counsel for the wife argued that the Family Court had allowed her petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights and therefore she should be permitted to conduct cross-examination in that matter. It was submitted that the Family Court had rejected her interim application and the High Court should direct reconsideration.
Opposing the plea, the husband’s counsel argued that the divorce petition was filed in 2019 and that until 2025 the wife had not sought restitution of conjugal rights. It was contended that she had been seeking adjournments on one ground or another and had already received Rs 27 lakh as interim maintenance. Only thereafter did she file a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, allegedly to prolong the proceedings. The counsel urged the court to dismiss the petition.
Dismissing the woman’s petition, the High Court imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 on her. The court directed that the amount be paid to the Sainik Welfare Fund within three weeks. It further instructed that the Family Court should proceed with consideration of any pending interim application only after proof of payment is produced.
With this order, the High Court underscored the need for discipline in matrimonial litigation and signalled that procedural tactics aimed at delaying trials will not be tolerated.
Also Read
