Madras High Court
R.Arthy vs Premkumar on 13 October, 2025
C.R.P.No.4876 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
C.R.P.No.4876 of 2025
R.Arthy
... Petitioner / Complainant
Versus
1. Premkumar
2. Anusha
3. Vijaybabu
4. Suganthi ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 227 of Constitution of
India, to pass an order for speedy trial in D.V.C.No.8 of 2021 pending on the
file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam, within time
frame fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the case in D.V.C.No.8
of 2021 pending on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Virudhachalam, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision
petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 03:30:42 pm )
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the marriage between the revision petitioner and the first respondent was
solemnized on 02.09.2019. The first respondent filed a petition for divorce in
F.C.O.P.No.16 of 2021 before the learned Family Court Judge, Namakkal
which was subsequently transferred to the learned Principal Sub-Judge,
Virudhachalam, Cuddalore District and re-numbered as H.M.O.P.No.134 of
2021. The same is still pending. Due to the cruelty inflicated by the husband
and his family members, the petitioner filed D.V.C.No.8 of 2021 on the file
of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam. The said petition,
filed in 2021, remains pending, causing great hardship and irreparable loss to
the petitioner. He would further submit that the speedy disposal of
D.V.C.No.8 of 2021 is just and necessary.
3. It is pertinent to mention that High Court cannot issue such
directions for speedy disposal unless there is a justification (or) acceptable
reasons for issuing any such directions. It is relevant to cite the judgment of
this Court in S.Baby Vs. S.Sakkubai Ammal reported in 2023 SCC OnLine
Mad 674, wherein, it has been held in paragraph nos.11 and 12 as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 03:30:42 pm )
“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision
Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of
cases pending in a particular Court on Board, it will result in
discrimination against many other litigants, who all are waiting
for disposal of their respective cases. There are allegations
against the Courts that the cases are selectively picked up and
disposed of. The plight of the poor and downtrodden are also to
be taken into consideration, while disposing of the cases. The
Court shall not pave way for such feeling to the litigants. The
trust on the Judicial System is the Hallmark and any form of
favouritism, nepotism or otherwise even in the matter of hearing
of cases selectively will have larger repercussions on the system.
No doubt certain cases are to be disposed of urgently, if there is
a public interest involved or the litigants are able to establish
genuine urgency for early disposal of the cases. Such cases
alone are to be given priority.
12. The practice of giving preference to any litigation
without any justification at all circumstances to be avoided.
Every litigant approaching the Court of Law is waiting for
justice and thus, it must be done in a consistent manner and
without discriminating the litigants. Therefore issuing directions
indiscriminately for speedy disposal of cases would do no
service to the cause of justice. Every urgency cannot be
considered for issuing a direction for speedy disposal, and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 03:30:42 pm )
urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”
4. It is also relevant to cite the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi Vs. The State of Maharashtra
reported in 2024 INSC 899, wherein, it has been held as follows:
“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. reported in (2024) 6 SCC 267, 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;” (underline supplied)
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.”
5. By applying the ratio laid down in the above judgments, fixing a
time-bound schedule for the Court below to dispose of the cases pending
therein is not warranted. The Court concerned is expected to regulate its own
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 03:30:42 pm )
procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure
that the cases are disposed of within a reasonable period of time.
6. Considering the age of the case and also considering the stage of
the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam, is requested
to dispose of the case in D.V.C.No.8 of 2021, within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above observations, this Civil Revision Petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
13.10.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhachalam.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 03:30:42 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
av
13.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/10/2025 03:30:42 pm )
