The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed the statutory obligation on Family Courts to conclude matrimonial proceedings within six months under Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, emphasizing that undue delay violates the fundamental rights to equality and speedy justice. This directive reinforces procedural discipline in family adjudication and sets a clear benchmark for judicial efficiency.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Smt. Sheelu Surana, filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, Shri Siddharth Surana. The matrimonial dispute was originally filed as Case No. 815/2022 before the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I. Despite the statutory mandate for expeditious disposal, the matter remained pending for over four years without conclusion.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on or about 15.02.2022
- Notice to the respondent was served on 10.04.2022
- The respondent filed his written statement on 28.06.2022
- Multiple dates of hearing were scheduled between 2022 and 2025, with frequent adjournments granted without recorded reasons
- As of the filing of the writ petition on 15.01.2026, no evidence had been recorded, and no final arguments had been heard
- The petitioner had made repeated representations to the Family Court for early hearing, all of which remained unaddressed
Procedural History
- 15.02.2022: Petition filed under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
- 10.04.2022: Notice of petition served on respondent
- 28.06.2022: Written statement filed by respondent
- 05.08.2022 to 12.11.2025: 17 hearing dates recorded; 14 adjournments granted without reasons
- 15.01.2026: Writ Petition No. 377/2026 filed before Rajasthan High Court seeking direction for expeditious disposal
- 30.04.2026: Judgment delivered by Justice Sameer Jain
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the Family Court to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice, in compliance with Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and to record reasons for any further adjournment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Family Court’s prolonged inaction in a matrimonial case, exceeding four years without trial conclusion, violates the mandatory timeline under Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and infringes upon the petitioners’ rights under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which mandates that every petition be tried as expeditiously as possible, with a clear objective to conclude the trial within six months from service of notice. He cited Ramrameshwari Devi v. Nirmala Devi (2011) 8 SCC 249, which held that delay in matrimonial proceedings causes irreparable emotional harm and undermines the very purpose of the Act. He further invoked Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979 AIR 1369) to underscore the right to speedy justice as an essential component of Article 21. He also referred to the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 16.09.2025 in Puja Pasricha v. Aishwarya Pasricha, which had issued similar directions under Section 21B.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not file a written reply or appear before the Court. No counter-arguments were presented.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the language of Section 21B, noting its mandatory character: "endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months". The Court held that this is not a mere guideline but a statutory imperative designed to prevent prolonged suffering in matrimonial disputes. The Court observed that the Family Court had failed to record reasons for any of the 14 adjournments granted over four years, thereby violating the requirement under Section 21B(1) that adjournments beyond the next day must be justified.
"The mandate of Section 21B is not a suggestion but a statutory obligation rooted in the recognition that matrimonial litigation, by its very nature, inflicts acute emotional and psychological trauma. Delay is not merely procedural; it is punitive."
The Court distinguished the Family Court’s discretion under Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, which permits flexible procedure, from its duty to adhere to time-bound adjudication under Section 21B. The Court emphasized that procedural flexibility cannot override statutory timelines. It further held that the inaction of the Family Court amounted to a violation of the petitioner’s right to equality under Article 14 and right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, as interpreted in Hussainara Khatoon and Ramrameshwari Devi.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Family Court No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I to conclude the trial in Case No. 815/2022 within six months from the date of service of notice, i.e., by 10.10.2026. The Family Court was directed to record reasons for any further adjournment and to conduct proceedings on a day-to-day basis as mandated under Section 21B(1). The Registrar (Judicial) was directed to send a copy of this order to the Family Court and to file a compliance report within 15 days of the deadline.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Timelines Are Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now cite Section 21B as a mandatory deadline in all matrimonial petitions, not merely as a procedural suggestion
- Failure to conclude within six months without recorded reasons constitutes grounds for writ relief under Article 226
- Courts must treat adjournments in matrimonial cases as exceptional, not routine
Delay Constitutes Violation of Fundamental Rights
- Prolonged pendency in family courts can now be challenged as a breach of Article 21, not just as administrative inefficiency
- Petitioners may seek compensation for mental agony caused by delay, citing Hussainara Khatoon and Ramrameshwari Devi
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are a viable remedy when Family Courts ignore statutory timelines
Judicial Accountability Is Now Explicit
- Family Courts must maintain a log of adjournments with reasons
- High Courts may initiate suo motu monitoring of pending matrimonial cases exceeding six months
- Compliance reports must be filed with the High Court within 15 days of the statutory deadline
