Constitutional courts should refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for case disposal in lower courts, except in exceptional circumstances where the survival of destitute litigants is at immediate risk.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Family Court, Thrissur, to dispose of M.C.No.549/2022 filed by her, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. As per the judgment rendered in Allahabad High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Others [2024 (6) SCC 267], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the constitutional courts from prescribing time limits for the disposal of the cases pending before the courts below, unless there are compelling reasons to adopt such a course.

4. Paragraph Nos. 32 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Association (supra), are extracted hereunder:-

“32. 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 concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out - of - turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

33. 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, 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 concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”

5. In the present case, the reasons stated by the petitioner for seeking speedy disposal is that she is finding it difficult to meet the expenses for the livelihood for herself and her daughter due to the neglect on the part of the respondent to pay maintenance, despite the orders of the Family Court directing payment of the interim maintenance. It is stated that though a petition has been filed before the court below for the enforcement of the aforesaid order, no fruitful results have come out. It thus appears that a speedy disposal of the aforesaid case is required, since it is related to the matter of survival of a destitute lady and her daughter.

In the above circumstances, the petition stands allowed as follows:-

The Family Court, Thrissur, is directed to dispose of M.C.No.549/2022 on the files of the said court, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.