Disposed

Ashwini Kumar Singh v. Smt. Unnati Singh and Another

Allahabad HC25 May 2024/2574/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Lucknow, per Alok Mathur, J., disposed of a writ petition under Article 227. The petitioner sought directions for the Family Court to decide an application for visiting rights with their minor daughter expeditiously. The court directed the petitioner to file a formal application highlighting urgency, mandating the trial court to decide within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file an urgent application for expediting the visiting rights lawsuit; trial court to decide within three weeks.

Ashwini Kumar Singh Vs Smt. Unnati Singh… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:40134

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2574 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Singh Respondent :- Smt. Unnati Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Saxena

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Alok Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶7

In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioners have sought direction to the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to consider and decide their application for interim relief filed alongwith Regular suit No. 409 of 2022 - Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. Smt. Unnati Singh and Another under Section 25 of the Guardianship and Ward Act, 1890, expeditiously.

¶9

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent no. 1 are husband and wife and the marriage was solemnized on 30.11.2020 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals and out of the said wedlock one daughter has been born on 28.01.2022, who has been made respondent no. 2 in the present petition.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 1 has left her matrimonial home and has not returned back since 02.02.2022 and accordingly petitioner had filed Regular Suit No. 409 of 2022, seeking custody of respondent no. 2 from respondent no. 1. In the said suit he has moved an application before the trial Court seeking visiting rights which is pending consideration since 06.08.2022 and it is stated that the matter is routinely listed and regularly adjourned without any further steps. It is stated that there is urgency in the case and accordingly aforesaid prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of petitioner's application.

¶11

In the light of above, a case for limited interference is made out, considering the fact that a father has visiting rights to his daughter who has moved an application to the said effect before the trial Court, it is provided that the petitioner shall move an application before the trial Court within two weeks from today, detailing urgency in the case alongwith prayer for expediting

¶12

disposal of his application. In case any such application is moved, the trial Court on receipt of such application shall proceed to consider and decide the same within three weeks thereafter. In case the trial Court finds that there is urgency in the matter, it shall proceed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner expeditiously, by means of reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law.

¶13

With aforesaid directions the writ petition stands disposed of . Order Date :- 25.5.2024 A. Verma

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashwini Kumar Singh v. Smt. Unnati Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Kumar Singh v. Smt. Unnati Singh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and Ors.

Hausila Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Ram Shankar Vs Board of Revenue Thru. Its Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Ramapati vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and 6 Others

Vindhyachal and Another vs Shri Avinash Singh, District Magistrate, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar

Anil Kumar and Another Vs Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faizabad and Another