Disposed¶17

Pragya Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Judge, Room No. 1, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC3 Jan 2024/6192/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition seeking expedition of pending Section 13 Hindu Marriage Act divorce suit (Case No. 1101 of 2020) before Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow; respondent's delay; cross-examination of respondent closed; Section 21(B) HMA six-month preference; Prabhat Narayan Tickoo v. Mamta Tickoo, 1998 SCC OnLine All 327; petition disposed of with direction for expeditious disposal, full opportunity of hearing, no unnecessary adjournments; merits not examined.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to consider the petitioner's case most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party; notice to the private respondents dispensed with. ¶17

Pragya Dixit Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's divorce proceedings (registered as Case No. 1101 of 2020) pending before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, which are being delayed by the respondent, should be expedited.

¶12

Court's answer

This Court held that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and directed the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to consider the petitioner's case most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Court clarified that it had not examined the case of either party on merits, and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 (Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, Jaspreet Singh, J., order dated 3.1.2024): The petitioner, who had instituted divorce proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow (registered as Case No. 1101 of 2020), complained that despite several dates fixed the respondent was delaying the proceedings, so much so that even the right to cross-examine the respondent stood closed. Counsel invoked Section 21(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (suit for divorce preferably to be decided within six months) and the observation of this Court in Prabhat Narayan Tickoo v. Smt. Mamta Tickoo (1998 SCC OnLine All 327). Holding that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending, the Court disposed of the petition by directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to consider the petitioner's case most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, while making clear that it had not examined the merits and the authority remained free to decide strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:976

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6192 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Pragya Dixit

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Judge, Room No. 1, Family Court, Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Dwivedi

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

In view of the order proposed by the Court, notice to the private respondents is dispensed with.

¶9

In furtherance of the order dated 22.12.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a preliminary objection which is taken on record.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has instituted proceedings before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Lucknow under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

¶11

It is submitted that the said suit was registered as Case No. 1101 of 2020 and despite several dates having been fixed, the respondent is delaying the proceedings, so much so that even the right to cross examine the respondent, was closed.

¶12

It is urged that in the aforesaid circumstances where the proceedings are pending, it would be appropriate if the same are expedited.

¶13

It is further urged that the provisions envisaged under Section 21(B) of Hindu Marriage Act 1955 as per which a suit for divorce should be decided preferably within a period of 6 months as also the observation made by this Court passed in the case of Prabhat Narayan Tickoo Versus Smt. Mamta Tickoo and others reported in 1998 SCC OnLine All 327 .

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow to consider the case of the petitioner most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the

¶15

parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶16

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the authority concerned shall be free to decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶18

Order Date :- 3.1.2024 Asheesh

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Pragya Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Judge, Room No. 1, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragya Dixit v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Judge, Room No. 1, Family Court, Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhedi Vs D.D.C. and Others

Ram Das Vs Apar Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and Ors.

Smt. Sahida Begum Vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) South, Court No. 24, Sultanpur and 2 Others

Surya Narayan Vs Brijesh Kumar and 9 Others

Vishundayal (Died) Thru. Satyadev and Others Vs Addl. Commissioner (Admin), Devipatan, Balrampur and Another

Sujeet Kumar Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Chairman/Registrar State Public Service Tribunal, Lko. and 4 Others