Writ directions for expeditious disposal require a justifiable and convincing cause.

The petitioner-husband had earlier obtained an order for restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent-wife. Alleging that she failed to comply with that order, he instituted M.C. No. 10 of 2026 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, seeking divorce. The matrimonial case was filed on 6 March 2026 and was pending at the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness. The petitioner invoked Article 227 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the trial Court to expedite the proceedings and dispose of the case within one month.

The proceeding sheets showed that the trial Court had issued notice, recorded the respondent’s appearance, referred the matter to mediation, dealt with the respondent’s objections and interlocutory applications, recorded the petitioner’s evidence, permitted recall and cross-examination of the petitioner’s witness, and thereafter granted the petitioner time to cross-examine the respondent’s witness. The case had consequently progressed substantially within approximately five months.

Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to direct the trial Court to dispose of M.C. No. 10 of 2026 within a stipulated period of one month?

Whether the progress of the matrimonial proceedings disclosed any justifiable or convincing ground warranting a time-bound direction to the trial Court?

The Court applied the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, holding that directions for expeditious disposal of pending cases should be issued sparingly and only where there is a justifiable or convincing cause and an absolute necessity for intervention.

The Court emphasised that each case must be managed according to its facts and procedural requirements, and that judicial officers must retain sufficient freedom and time to conduct proceedings fairly, examine evidence, hear arguments, and deliver reasoned decisions. While avoidable delay cannot be permitted, rigid deadlines and excessive emphasis on numerical or speedy disposal must not compromise the quality and fairness of adjudication.

The High Court examined the certified proceeding sheets and found that the trial Court had actively managed the matter and had substantially advanced the proceedings within five months of institution. It had rejected unnecessary requests for adjournment, dealt with interlocutory applications, afforded procedural opportunities where justified, and proceeded with the recording of evidence.

Since the case was progressing and no unexplained or avoidable delay was demonstrated, the petitioner failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required for an Article 227 direction imposing a one-month deadline. The Court further held that imposing rigid timelines without sufficient justification could place undue pressure on judicial officers and adversely affect the fairness and quality of adjudication.

Finding that the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Soraba, was already making appropriate efforts to progress the matter expeditiously, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.