Disposed

Smt Priyanka Devi v. Gyanendra Kumar Yadav

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2024A227/14906/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ directing the Family Court to decide a pending divorce petition under Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court held that the statute already mandates expedited disposal, making a separate direction unnecessary, and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of; no separate direction under Article 227 was issued as the statutory provision mandates expeditious trial.

Smt Priyanka Devi vs Gyanendra Kumar Yadav — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:185811

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14906 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Priyanka Devi Respondent :- Gyanendra Kumar Yadav Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Kumar Pandey,Ravi Sahu

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:

¶7

"i) Issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Additional Principal Judge Family Court, Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar to decide the Case No.1553 of 2020 (Smt. Priyanka Devi Versus Gyanendra Kumar Yadav) under section 13 Hindu Marriage Act 1955, most expeditiously within some stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

¶8

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that divorce petition is pending consideration since 2020.

¶9

Section 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1955") provides as under :

¶10

"21-B. Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the Act.?

¶11

(1) The trial of a petition under this Act shall, so far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice in respect of the trial, be continued from day to day until its conclusion unless the court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(3) Every appeal under this Act shall be heard as expeditiously as possible, and endeavour shall be made to conclude the hearing within three months from the date of service of notice of appeal on the respondent."

¶14

As the Act of 1955 itself provides for deciding the divorce petition within fixed period of time, there is no need for issuing a separate

¶15

direction to the Court concerned.

¶16

The Principal Judge, Family, Kanpur Nagar Court to proceed in accordance with Section 21B of Act of 1955.

¶17

Writ petition stands disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 27.11.2024 SK Goswami

¶19

Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Priyanka Devi v. Gyanendra Kumar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Priyanka Devi v. Gyanendra Kumar Yadav

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

Similar cases

Rajesh Kumar Yadav vs Subhadra and 2 Others

Shivshyam Singh and 2 Others vs Smt. Shakuntala Devi and 24 Others

Ramaasre vs Dayaram and 3 Others

Prabhat Ranjan vs Allahabad Bank (Now Indian Bank) Hindi Sahitya Sammellan Marg Branch and 2 Others

Smt. Abhilasha vs Satish Yadav and 8 Others

Smt Mamta Gupta and Another vs Smt Rama Dubey