Dismissed

Anju Sharma v. Gaurav Sharma

Allahabad HC1 Feb 2021FAPLD/24/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal regarding maintenance under the Hindu Marriage Act, the High Court found that the appellant had not challenged the earlier maintenance award and the matter was pending under a specific expedited mandate. Consequently, the appellate court was not inclined to entertain the appeal, especially after the appellant voluntarily relinquished the right to pursue it.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anju Sharma Vs Gaurav Sharma — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 24 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Anju Sharma Respondent :- Gaurav Sharma Counsel for Appellant :- Anurag Vajpeyi,Aushim Luthra

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶6

Appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 9.11.2020 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.5, Kanpur Nagar, whereby the trial court has rejected the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") in the Matrimonial Petition No.432 of 2013 (Gaurav Sharma Vs. Anju Sharma).

¶7

It appears from the record that the plaintiff-respondent instituted the proceeding under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act being Case No.432 of 2003 (Gaurav Sharma v. Smt. Anju Sharma) before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur. Initially an application dated 3.11.2015 under Section 24 of the Act has been preferred by the appellant, which was allowed by order dated 3.9.2016. Thereafter, another application under Section 24 of the Act has been moved on the ground that the earlier maintenance, which was accorded, was meagre and the pleadings could not be established on account of nonfurnishing relevant material i.e. income tax return and bank details of plaintiff-respondent. While rejecting the said application the Principal Judge, Family Court has opined that against the said order no appeal/ revision has been preferred. Inspite of the fact that the said order was revisable/ appellable, no such effort has been made. Therefore, it was observed by the order impugned that subsequent application cannot be maintained in view of law laid down by State of Uttaranchal in Rahul Smrat Tandon v. Neelu Tandon reported in LAWS (UTN)-20107-288 . The Principal Judge has also taken cognizance of the order dated 28.1.2020 passed in Matters Under Article 227 No.774 of 2020 (Gaurav Sharma v. Uppar Principal Judge, Family Court & Anr.) wherein the plaintiff-

¶8

respondent approached this Court for expediting the said proceeding, which was disposed of asking the Principal Judge, Family Court to finalise the proceeding within six months. Taking into account the said mandate of the High Court, the court below was of the opinion that the said application has been preferred just to delay the proceeding under Section 13 of the Act and accordingly the same was rejected.

¶9

We have also occasion to peruse the order dated 28.1.2020, which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

¶10

"The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to decide the proceedings of Case No. 432 of 2013 (Gaurav Sharma Vs Anju Sharma), under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, pending before the learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar, within a stipulated period of time.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, contends that the suit was instituted in the year 2013. He calls attention to the order-sheet to submit that the suit is being adjourned and a final decision is being inordinately delayed for no good reason. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the maintenance granted by the court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is being paid by the petitioner to his wife.

¶12

I see merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in case the matrimonial dispute proceedings before the learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar, remain pending for inordinately long time, irreparable loss would accrue to the parties. The parties cannot make a fresh start in life and with passage of time shall be effectively precluded from doing so.

¶13

A perusal of the ordersheet shows that the matter has been pending without any effective proceedings happening before the learned trial court.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the ordersheet, this Court finds that the suit has been pending for more than six year. No good reason or valid basis in law can be prised out from the ordersheet for the inordinate delay in deciding the suit. No lis can remain pending indefinitely before a court of law. Indefinite pendency of a lis goes to the root of administration of justice. There is merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

The legislature too has set its face against delay in deciding the matrimonial disputes where time is critical and indeed of the essence in such matters. Section 21B(2) of the the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which conveys the legislative mandate in clear terms. The courts are under obligation to achieve the statutory mandate:

¶16

"21B (2). Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent."

¶17

In view of the preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned trial court / the learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar,, before whom the Case No. 432 of 2013 (Gaurav Sharma Vs Anju Sharma) is pending, to execute the following directions:

¶18

(I) The learned trial court / the learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar, is directed to decide the Case No. 432 of 2013 (Gaurav Sharma Vs Anju Sharma) preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

(II) The learned trial court/ the learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶20

(III) In case any adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, the learned trial court/ the learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur

¶21

Nagar, shall impose costs not below Rs. 5,000/- for each adjournment.

¶22

(IV) In case the counsel for any party does not appear before the learned trial court/ learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar, on any date on the ground of strike of advocates, the learned trial court/learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar, shall not permit such counsel (of either party) to appear in this case on future dates.

¶23

(V) The learned trial court/ the learned Uppar Principal Judge (Family Court), Kanpur Nagar, shall proceed with the trial on a day to day basis, if required, to ensure that the all endeavours are made to decide the petition preferably within a period of six months.

¶24

With the aforesaid direction, the petition is finally disposed of."

¶25

The aforesaid order has been passed way back on 28.1.2020 and this is admitted situation that till now the proceeding in question has not been finalised.

¶26

Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowers the matrimonial Court to make an order for maintenance pendente lite and for expenses of proceedings to a needy and indigent spouse. The object and purpose of this statutory provision, obviously is to enable the Court to see that the indigent spouse is put in a financial condition in which the party concerned may produce proper material and evidence in the case. The intention of the Legislature in enacting this provision is to see that a party is not handicapped in or prevented from bringing all the relevant facts before the Court for decision of the case because of his or her poverty.

¶27

In the present matter admittedly as per the conditions prevailing therein the earlier application of the appellant under Section 24 of the Act was allowed by order dated 3.9.2016. The same has been acted upon and at no point of time the same has been assailed either in appeal or in revision. Meanwhile the High Court in the aforementioned petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has expedited the proceeding under Section 13 being Case No.432 of 2013 (Gaurav Sharma v. Anju Sharma) to be finalised within six months and for each adjournment cost of Rs.5000/- was also directed to be imposed. Under the facts and circumstances, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar has rightly proceeded to reject the application. This is also admitted situation that inspite of the order dated 28.1.2020 till now the Case No.432 of 2013 has not been finalised.

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case, at this stage, we are not inclined to entertain present appeal.

¶29

Once we have proceeded to indicate our mind in negative,

¶30

learned counsel for the appellant states that he is not inclined to press the present appeal.

¶31

In view of this, present appeal is dismissed as not pressed. The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the appellant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶32

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 1.2.2021 T. Sinha/SP/

Anju Sharma v. Gaurav Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anju Sharma v. Gaurav Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saravan Ram Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Satnam Singh Randhawa Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anuj Kame Vs Pallavi Chaudhary

M/S S.K. Associates and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Shri Pushpendra Singh and Another Vs Ganpati Infrastructure Development Co. Ltd. and 3 Others

Awadhesh Kumar and Another Vs Union of India and 7 Others