Madras High Court
Mr.Subash Karthik vs Mrs. Jayashree Krishnamoorthy on 22 September, 2025
CRP.No.4504 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M. JOTHIRAMAN
CRP.No.4504 of 2025
Mr.Subash Karthik ... Petitioner /
Petitioner
Versus
Mrs. Jayashree Krishnamoorthy ... Respondent /
Respondent
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, to direct the Hon'ble Sub Judge, Alandur, Chennai to hear and dispose
H.M.O.P.No.164 of 2025 pending on the file of the Hon'ble Sub Court,
Alandur within the time frame to be fixed by this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Thamizhanban
ORDER
Seeking a direction for the speedy disposal of the H.M.O.P.No.164 of
2025 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Alandur, Chennai, the petitioner
has preferred the present civil revision petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:34:12 pm )
2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would
submit that the revision petitioner / husband has filed an application in
H.M.O.P.No.164 of 2025 on the file of the Sub Court, Alandur seeking for
divorce and the same is pending for the past several months, there is no
progress in this case. The learned counsel further submits that the revision
petitioner has now resigned from Tata Communications Limited as per
resignation letter dated 17.04.2025 and has permanently relocated from
Chennai to Banglore due to career transition and personal constraints and he
prays that speedy disposal of the case in H.M.O.P.No.164 of 2025 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:
“11. In the event of issuing direction in Civil Revision
Petitions for speedy disposal without considering the number of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:34:12 pm )
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
urgency, which is imminent alone to be considered.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:34:12 pm )
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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:34:12 pm )
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 Sub Court, Alandur, Chennai,
shall dispose of the H.M.O.P.No.164 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible.
With the above observations, this civil revision petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
22.09.2025
av
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order : Yes/No
Neutral Case Citation : Yes/No
To
The learned Sub Court, Alandur, Chennai.
M. JOTHIRAMAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:34:12 pm )
av
22.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/09/2025 02:34:12 pm )
