The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling on procedural law, has set aside a Family Court’s order that scheduled final arguments in a divorce petition while a substantive issue of permanent alimony was yet to be fully adjudicated. Justice Milind N. Jadhav held that devising a procedure “unknown to law” to meet a time-bound schedule set by a superior court would result in “manifest injustice” and that the fairness of a trial cannot be sacrificed for speed.
The High Court quashed the Family Court’s orders dated October 4, 2025, which had fixed a tight schedule for final arguments, and September 22, 2025, which had closed the wife’s evidence. The court emphasized that while expeditious disposal is important, it cannot be achieved by short-circuiting legally established procedures.
Background of the Case
The matter originates from a divorce petition filed by the husband against his wife on the grounds of cruelty. The Family Court in Mumbai had framed issues for determination on October 21, 2021. Subsequently, on April 21, 2025, an additional issue (No. 4A) was framed concerning the wife’s claim for permanent alimony.
The proceedings have been protracted, prompting the Supreme Court of India on multiple occasions to direct an expedited, time-bound conclusion. In its latest order dated August 29, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a “final extension of three months upto 28.11.2025” for the trial’s conclusion, warning that it would draw an “adverse inference” if any party indulged in delaying tactics.
Meanwhile, the Bombay High Court, in a related writ petition on September 29, 2025, had directed the husband to file a mandatory Affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities, in line with the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Rajnesh Vs. Neha, to enable the trial court to decide the permanent alimony claim. The deadline for this disclosure was October 18, 2025.
Despite this, the Family Court, citing the Supreme Court’s deadline, issued an order on October 4, 2025, directing the parties to commence final arguments from October 6, 2025, and conclude by October 18, 2025. The trial court’s order stated that a “limited opportunity” would be granted later to argue the alimony issue after the husband’s affidavit was filed. This order, along with an earlier order closing the wife’s evidence, was challenged by the wife before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appearing for the wife, a Senior Advocate argued that the Family Court’s direction to begin final arguments before the husband filed his financial disclosure was premature and would cause “gross prejudice and injustice.” He submitted that without the disclosure affidavit, Issue No. 4A on permanent alimony could not be properly adjudicated. He contended that this “short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes” would render the directions in the Rajnesh case otiose and violate the wife’s substantive rights.
Representing the husband, a Senior Advocate defended the Family Court’s order. He argued that the judge had correctly determined the timeline in light of the “final and non-extendable” deadline set by the Supreme Court. He submitted that the wife’s rights were preserved as the trial court had created a separate window to hear arguments on alimony, thus attempting to do justice to both sides while adhering to the Supreme Court’s mandate.
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
Justice Milind N. Jadhav, after hearing both sides, found the procedure adopted by the Family Court to be unsustainable in law. The court observed that while it is bound by the directions of the Supreme Court, procedural fairness and principles of natural justice cannot be compromised.
The High Court held that directing parties to commence final arguments on three issues while the evidence and procedure on a fourth, substantive issue were incomplete “is a procedure which is unknown to law. Such a procedure does not have sanction of any law.”
Justice Jadhav cited the legal principle settled in Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors., quoting, “It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all.”
The court further noted that the timeline fixed by the Supreme Court was ending on November 28, 2025, not October 18, 2025, and there was no justification for such haste. The judgment criticized the approach of bypassing established norms, quoting a recent Supreme Court decision in K. Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan: “Short-circuiting of procedure to reach hasty outcomes is an undesirable propensity of an overburdened judiciary. Such impulses rendering procedural safeguards and substantive rights otiose, subvert certainty and consistency in law and need to be discouraged.”
The court also opined that if a trial judge anticipates being unable to meet a deadline, the appropriate remedy is to request an extension from the higher court, not to invent a flawed procedure.
In its final decision, the High Court quashed the Family Court’s order of October 4, 2025, which had set the schedule for final arguments, and the order of September 22, 2025, which had closed the wife’s evidence. The trial court was directed to proceed with the case expeditiously only after the deadline for the filing of the husband’s disclosure affidavit on October 18, 2025, and to conduct the trial strictly in accordance with the law.
