Dismissed¶9

Smt. Aradhana Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2025A483/554/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.483 application dismissed; direction for disposal of pending DV Act Section 12 application refused; Section 12(5) PWDV Act 60-day timeline; delay attributed to applicant's failure to file exparte evidence after exparte proceedings of 07.05.2025; applicant may approach concerned court at appropriate stage per Supreme Court law; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Rajnish Kumar, J.; 24.7.2025; Aradhana Yadav v. State of U.P.

What did the court decide?

Since the Magistrate had already proceeded exparte on 07.05.2025 and the applicant failed to file the exparte evidence on the subsequent dates (12.06.2025 and 25.06.2025), the delay in disposal of the Section 12 application cannot be attributed to the Court; the applicant herself is responsible for not assisting the court in the proceedings. ¶8

Smt. Aradhana Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should issue a direction to the Learned Magistrate to dispose of the applicant's pending Section 12 Domestic Violence Act application, given counsel's contention that Section 12(5) mandates disposal within sixty days from first hearing. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

This Court was not inclined to issue any direction for disposal of the Section 12 DV Act application at that stage.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

¶8

Key takeaways

As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (no case named in the judgment), the applicant may approach the concerned court at the appropriate stage, which may consider the same and proceed accordingly.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 12), Rajnish Kumar, J.; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:42497; Application under S.483 No. 554 of 2025, decided 24.7.2025. Applicant Smt. Aradhana Yadav sought a direction for disposal of her application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act filed on 31.08.2024, invoking the sixty-day timeline in Section 12(5) of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act. The Court, perusing the order sheet, found the trial court had proceeded exparte on 07.05.2025 and that the applicant had not filed the exparte evidence on the dates fixed (12.06.2025 and 25.06.2025); hence the delay could not be attributed to the Court, the applicant herself being responsible for not assisting the court. Declining to issue any direction at that stage, and noting that per Supreme Court law the applicant could approach the concerned court at the appropriate stage, the Court held the petition misconceived and dismissed it.

Smt. Aradhana Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aradhana Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sewak and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Nafees Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Juvenile Against Law, Under Guardian Thru. His Father Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishna Kumar Tripathi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Another

Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another