Disposed¶14

Smt. Rachana Gautam and Another v. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd Lko. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC15 Nov 2025A483/967/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application U/S 483 No. 967 of 2025, Allahabad HC Lucknow Bench, decided 15.11.2025 (Saurabh Lavania, J.). Applicants Rachana Gautam and another sought expedited decision of complaint case No. 417/2022 under s.12 D.V. Act 2005 (maintenance), pending since 24.8.2022 before Addl. CJM 3rd Lko. Application disposed of with direction for expeditious conclusion of proceedings; grounded in Art. 21 speedy-trial rulings (Maneka Gandhi (1978) 1 SCC 248; Hussainara Khatoon (1980) 1 SCC 81; Kadra Pahadiya (1981) 3 SCC 671) and the s.12(5) sixty-day disposal provision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the court concerned (opposite party No.1) to make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings of complaint case No. 417/2022 under section 12 of the D.V. Act expeditiously. ¶14

Smt. Rachana Gautam and Another Vs Addl. Chief Judicial… — Domestic Violence | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the court concerned (opposite party No.1) to make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings of complaint case No. 417/2022 under section 12 of the D.V. Act expeditiously.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct opposite party No.1 to consider and decide complaint case No. 417/2022 under section 12 of the D.V. Act (maintenance), pending since 24.8.2022, within stipulated time.

¶13

Court's answer

The right to speedy trial/disposal of a case is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as per various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court including Maneka Gandhi, Hussainara Khatoon and Kadra Pahadiya.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to make all endeavour for concluding the proceedings of complaint case No. 417/2022 expeditiously, mindful of the sixty-day disposal provision in sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act of 2005.

¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Saurabh Lavania, J. — Application U/S 483 No. 967 of 2025 (Smt. Rachana Gautam and another v. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd Lko. and 7 others), decided November 15, 2025. The applicants sought a direction to opposite party No.1 to consider and decide complaint case No. 417/2022 under section 12 of the D.V. Act for maintenance, pending since 24.8.2022. Noting the pendency and the provision in sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application within sixty days of first hearing, and relying on Maneka Gandhi (1978) 1 SCC 248, Hussainara Khatoon (1980) 1 SCC 81 and Kadra Pahadiya (1981) 3 SCC 671, the Court held that the right to speedy trial/disposal of a case is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and disposed of the application with a direction to the court concerned to make all endeavour to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 967 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Rachana Gautam And Another

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd Lko. And 7 Others

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Prem Chandra Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 13

¶10

HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned Government Advocate for the State of U.P. and perused the record.

¶12

The instant application has been preferred by the applicant for the following main relief:-

¶13

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party No.1 to consider and decide the complaint case No. 417/2022 under section 12 of D.V. Act for maintenance of the petitioners which is pending since 24.8.2022 before the opposite party No.1 within stipulated time."

¶14

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case indicated in the application including the period of pendency of the case in issue, which was filed under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short 'Act of 2005'), by the applicants and also that as per Sub Section 5 of Section 12 of the Act of 2005, the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under subsection (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing, the present application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to make all endeavour for concluding the proceedings of the case in issue, expeditiously as according to various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the judgment(s) passed in the case of Maneka Gandhi Versus Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248, Hussainara Khatoon Versus Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81, Kadra Pahadiya and Others Versus State of Bihar (1981) 3 SCC 671 , the right to speedy trial/disposal of case is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

With the aforesaid, the instant application is disposed of. November 15, 2025 ML/-

¶16

(Saurabh Lavania,J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- MUNNA LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Rachana Gautam and Another v. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd Lko. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rachana Gautam and Another v. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd Lko. and 7 Others

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ran Vijay Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, U.P. Lko. and Another

Uttam Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home and Another

Uttam Rai Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Anoter

Smt. Rachana Gautam and Another vs Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate 3rd Lko. and 7 Others

Rajmani @ Rajmani Ram ( Ex Serviceman Indian Army) vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) U.P. Lko. and 8 Others

Anil Kumar Srivastava and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another