Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has said court cases cannot proceed on the whims and fancies of applicants, while rejecting a woman’s petition and imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 on her for dragging divorce proceedings by seeking numerous adjournments. The petitioner, a Kanakapura resident, had approached HC against a family court’s Nov 28, 2025, order rejecting her appeal for permission to cross-examine her husband, a city resident, in 2019 divorce case. The husband, who had applied for divorce, opposed her petition saying he had already paid Rs 27 lakh towards interim maintenance and that she had not once sought restitution of conjugal rights.
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha noted that the woman took numerous adjournments on various grounds since 2019, and failed to complete her husband’s cross-examination despite HC’s July 29, 2024, direction to accomplish it in one stretch. “Neither Family Courts Act nor Code of Civil Procedure can be used to frustrate the proceedings or to cause inconvenience either to the other party or to the courts,” HC observed. “The flow of proceedings clearly depicts gross negligence on the part of the wife. The wife never chose to cooperate with the court. This case reveals a very sorry state of affairs. If litigation in Indian courts is carried out in the manner in which the proceedings in this case went on until now, no case will be disposed of within a decade. Breach of mandate of law is clearly found.“The manner in which the family court conducted the proceedings is highly appreciable. Even on merits, this court does not find any grounds whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order. Having perceived the fact that the wife intentionally dragged on the matter and not only wasted the time of the family court but also this court, [it] considers disposing of this writ petition by imposing heavy costs upon the petitioner,” the judge observed. The family court was directed to continue the proceedings and dispose of the case. The wife will be allowed to participate in the proceedings only after she produces sufficient proof of payment of costs, the judge said.
