Madras High Court
P.Senthil vs S.Priya on 4 September, 2025
CRP No. 4169 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-09-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
CRP No. 4169 of 2025
P.Senthil
S/o. Late M.Poongavanam,
No. 19, North Mada Street,
Nungambakkam, Chennai-34.
Permanent Residing at.
No. 23 Mclennan OaK, San Antonio,
TX-7824, USA.
Petitioner
Vs
S.Priya
W/o. P.Senthil,
Old No. 11/1, New No. 16,
2nd Trust Link Street, Mandaveli,
Chennai-28.
Respondent
PRAYER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, to order for a speedy trial of the Case in HMOP No. 260 of 2021
pending on the file of the Honble IV Additional Principal Family Court at
Chennai and dispose of the same on merits within a period of three months and
pass such further or other order or orders as this Honble Court.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
CRP No. 4169 of 2025
For Petitioner(s): M/s. L.Margret
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed seeking a direction for the
speedy disposal of the case in HMOP No. 260 of 2021 pending on the file of the
IV Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai and dispose of the same
on merits within a period of three months.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that
the petitioner has filed a petition in HMOP No.260 of 2021 under Section
13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking to dissolve the marriage
between the petitioner and the respondent, before the learned IV Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai. He would further submit that the said
petition is pending from 2021 onwards. Hence, he seeks speedy disposal of the
said petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
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:
“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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
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 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. In view of the same, the learned IV Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chennai, shall dispose of the HMOP No.260 of 2021 as
expeditiously as possible.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
7. With the above observations, this civil revision petition stands disposed
of. No costs.
04-09-2025
mfa
Index:Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Internet:Yes
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
To
The IV Additional Principal Judge,
Family Court, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
M.JOTHIRAMAN J.
mfa
04-09-2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/09/2025 06:38:18 pm )
