The Bombay High Court emphasized that in divorce proceedings, speedy disposal should not compromise trial fairness, underscoring that ensuring justice and adherence to due process is more important than merely concluding cases quickly.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: In a landmark ruling on procedural law, the Bombay High Court recently set aside a Family Court order that had attempted to expedite a divorce trial at the cost of legal procedure. Justice Milind N. Jadhav emphasized that the fairness of a trial cannot be sacrificed for speed, even under pressure from higher courts.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband on grounds of cruelty. The Family Court in Mumbai had framed issues for determination back in October 2021. In April 2025, an additional issue, Issue No. 4A, was framed concerning the wife’s claim for permanent alimony.
Over the years, the proceedings became protracted, prompting the Supreme Court to intervene multiple times, directing a time-bound conclusion. The latest Supreme Court order, dated August 29, 2025, granted a “final extension of three months” up to November 28, 2025, warning that any delay could attract adverse inferences.
Simultaneously, the Bombay High Court, in a related writ petition in September 2025, 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. This disclosure was crucial for deciding the permanent alimony claim and was due by October 18, 2025.
Despite this, the Family Court issued an order on October 4, 2025, directing final arguments to commence on October 6 and conclude by October 18. The trial court promised a “limited opportunity” to argue the alimony issue later, after the husband filed his affidavit. The wife challenged this, arguing that her substantive rights were being compromised.
Arguments Before the High Court
Wife’s counsel:
The wife’s counsel contended that beginning final arguments without the husband’s financial disclosure would cause gross prejudice and injustice, rendering the procedure for deciding permanent alimony meaningless. They argued that the Family Court’s approach effectively bypassed legal safeguards established in the Rajnesh case.
Husband’s counsel:
The husband’s counsel defended the Family Court, asserting that it was merely trying to comply with the Supreme Court’s deadline and had preserved the wife’s rights by allowing a separate window for the alimony arguments.
High Court’s Analysis
Justice Jadhav highlighted a crucial principle: procedural fairness cannot be sacrificed for expediency. Directing parties to commence arguments on three issues while the fourth, permanent alimony, remained unresolved, was “a procedure which is unknown to law.”
The court drew upon established precedents, including Meera Sahni Vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, noting that
“if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under law, it must be done in that manner or not at all.”
The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court’s warning in K. Valarmathi and Others vs. Kumaresan: short-circuiting procedure to reach hasty outcomes undermines procedural safeguards and substantive rights.
Importantly, the High Court observed that the Supreme Court’s deadline was November 28, 2025, not October 18, 2025, and thus there was no justification for rushing the trial. It stressed that if a trial judge anticipates a deadline challenge, the correct remedy is to seek an extension from the higher court, not to invent procedural shortcuts.
The Bombay High Court quashed:
- The October 4, 2025, Family Court order scheduling final arguments, and
- The September 22, 2025, order closed the wife’s evidence.
The trial court was directed to proceed only after the husband’s financial disclosure on October 18, 2025, and to conduct the trial strictly in accordance with the law, ensuring fairness while remaining expeditious.
ALSO READ: Land-Grabbing Tactic Affecting Hundreds of Families: Kerala High Court Slams Waqf Board
Appearance:
For the Petitioner: Mr.Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate with Ms.Chandana Salgaocar and Ms.Anisha Nair and Amaya Prajapati i/b Naik Naik & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr.Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate with Mr.Vishwajeet Kapse, Mr.Sameer Tapia, Ms.Siddhi Doshi and Mr.Rohan Marathe i/b ALMT Legal
Case Title:
Poonam Jaidev Shroff Versus Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.33325 OF 2025
Read Order: