The petition under Article 227 challenging the rejection of an application for expeditious disposal of a divorce suit was dismissed. The petitioners failed to demonstrate cogent grounds, noting non-compliance with mediation and lack of respondent's presence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:20221
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1153 of 2024
Petitioner :- Divyanshu Misra Respondent :- Principal Judge, Family Court, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Kumar Upadhyay
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Under challenge is the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in a Suit No.237/2024 where an application was moved by the present petitioner to prepone the date fixed in the matter and decide the suit expeditiously.
The Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow holding that the application was not maintainable, it rejected the said application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed before the Court concerned by the petitioner and the private-respondent No.2 wherein the first motion was entertained and the matter is listed on 22.07.2024 for filing of the second motion.
It is urged that since the parties are unable to live together and they have already filed a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, consequently, the cooling period may be waived as provided in the decision of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417 which has been taken note of in the Constitutional decision of the Apex Court in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 .
Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, it appears that the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow in its order dated 03.02.2024 has clearly noticed that the private-respondent was not present while the prayer for early disposal was only at the behest of the petitioner. It also found that the compliance regarding the mediation before the parties has also not been complied with as the matter was listed on 05.03.2024.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the application was rejected and
there does not appear any cogent reason as to why the impugned order can said to be bad. It is admitted that the efforts for mediation which was to be held on 05.03.2024 was not complied with as the private-respondent No.2 did not appear.
In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find that there is any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed .
Order Date :- 6.3.2024 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the rejection of an application for expeditious disposal of a divorce suit under Article 227 due to non-compliance with mediation.
Whether the cooling period under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act can be lawfully waived when the petitioner unilaterally seeks early disposal without respondent's consent.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen KaurReferred¶10
Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, AIR 2017 SC 4417 · Who else cites this
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun SreenivasanReferred¶10
Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 544 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Divyanshu Misra
Principal Judge, Family Court, Lko.
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
