High Court Declines Second Plea for Expedited Divorce Hearing; Upholds Trial Court's Discretion and Cites No Inordinate Delay - 2025-05-12

High Court Rejects Renewed Plea for Speedy Divorce Trial, Emphasizes Judicial Discretion

Court Finds No Grounds to Interfere with Trial Court's Schedule, Citing Lack of Inordinate Delay and Previous Expedition Order

The High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking an expedited hearing for a divorce case, reinforcing the principle that such directions cannot be issued routinely without substantial justification and would otherwise interfere with the trial court's autonomy in managing its case roster. This marks the second time the petitioner approached the High Court for similar relief concerning the same divorce petition.

Case Background

The petitioner had filed a divorce petition in 2020, which was initially before the Family Court No.1, Bikaner. Following a transfer application, the case was moved to the Additional District Judge, Begun Camp Court, District Chittorgarh, in March 2022. The petitioner had previously filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16973/2023, whereupon the High Court, on October 30, 2023, had already directed the expeditious disposal of the divorce petition in accordance with the law.

Dissatisfied with the pace, the petitioner filed the current writ petition, seeking a specific directive for the trial court to decide the divorce petition within a six-month timeframe.

Court's Rationale for Dismissal

The High Court, in its order, expressed disinclination to grant the prayer, drawing upon established legal principles and the specific facts of the case.

No Sweeping Directions Without Cause: The Court noted that "in absence of any statistics regarding the institution, pending and disposal of the cases before the concerned Court, no sweeping direction can be passed to decide a particular case on priority." Such an order, it opined, "would interfere with the cause list of the concerned Court and the corresponding priorities of the other pending matters."

Citing Allahabad High Court Precedents: The judgment heavily relied on two Division Bench rulings of the Allahabad High Court:

Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba (2015): This case established that entertaining writ petitions under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution merely for expediting suits is inappropriate. > “Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or great antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel... Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out.”

Km. Shobha Bose v. Judge Small Causes & Ors. (2011): This ruling emphasized that the power for out-of-turn disposal should be exercised sparingly. > “It is fit to be exercised only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would cause gross injustice... It should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice.”

No Evidence of Inordinate Delay: Reviewing the trial court's order sheets, the High Court found no evidence of unreasonable delay attributable to the lower court.

"A bare perusal of the order sheets of the Trial Court reflects that after the matter been transferred, it was kept for conciliation proceedings, which is a mandate. The same having failed, the matter was posted for petitioner’s evidence on 06.08.2024. The order sheets nowhere reflect that the proceedings have been delayed inordinately or intentionally."

The Court highlighted that the divorce petition was filed on July 17, 2020. Proceedings were stayed for a period due to a transfer application, which was allowed on March 16, 2022. Mandatory conciliation proceedings followed, and upon their failure, the case was scheduled for the petitioner's evidence.

Previous Expedition Order Noted

Crucially, the High Court observed that it had already issued an order for expeditious disposal in a previous writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16973/2023) filed by the same petitioner on October 30, 2023. The current petition, therefore, appeared to be a repeated attempt without new compelling grounds.

Final Decision

Given the lack of evidence of inordinate delay, the existing directive for expeditious disposal, and the principles against routine interference with trial court schedules, the High Court concluded:

"In view of the above observations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition and the same is hence, dismissed."

All associated stay petitions and pending applications were also disposed of. The decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach to granting requests for prioritized hearings, balancing the needs of individual litigants against the broader demands on the court system and the autonomy of trial judges.