Dismissed¶24

Shalu Tiwari v. Pawan Tiwari

Allahabad HC10 Oct 2025FAPLD/166/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 34 days; IA 1 of 2025 allowed; FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE (FAPLD) No. 166 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Court No. 10; Shalu Tiwari v. Pawan Tiwari; judgment and order dated 27.02.2025; Additional Principal Judge (III), Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri; Case No. 804/2020; allegations of cruelty not proved; plea regarding respondent's relations with her aunt neither proved nor aunt impleaded; reasoned and speaking order; no error or illegality; appeal dismissed as misconceived; Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.; Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J.; decided October 10, 2025; matrimonial dispute; no relief on merits to appellant.

What did the court decide?

Only condonation of the 34-day delay in filing the appeal (IA 1 of 2025); on merits no relief — the appeal was dismissed as misconceived. ¶24

Shalu Tiwari Vs Pawan Tiwari — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Only condonation of the 34-day delay in filing the appeal (IA 1 of 2025); on merits no relief — the appeal was dismissed as misconceived.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the 34-day delay in filing the appeal should be condoned (IA 1 of 2025). +1 more

¶10

Court's answer

The ground shown being sufficient on due consideration of the submissions and the supporting affidavit, IA 1 of 2025 is allowed and the 34-day delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The impugned judgment was passed after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties; the appellant could not prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent, and her plea that the respondent has relations with her aunt was neither proved nor was the aunt impleaded as a party; despite repeated query, learned counsel for the appellant failed to argue any ground against the impugned judgment.

¶23

Key takeaways

The impugned judgment is a reasoned and speaking order passed considering the evidence and material on record; this Court finds no error or illegality in it; the appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAPLD No. 166 of 2025 — High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 10; Shalu Tiwari v. Pawan Tiwari; decided October 10, 2025 by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J. and Hon'ble Zafeer Ahmad, J. Delay of 34 days in filing the appeal was condoned (IA 1 of 2025, no objection from the other side) and the matter registered as a regular Appeal. The appeal challenged the judgment and order dated 27.02.2025 of the Additional Principal Judge (III), Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.804/2020. Held: the judgment below was a reasoned and speaking order passed after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties; the appellant had failed to prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent, and her plea that the respondent has relations with her aunt was neither proved nor was the aunt impleaded; despite repeated query, learned counsel could advance no ground against the impugned judgment. Finding no error or illegality, the Court dismissed the appeal as misconceived.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

FIRST APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 166 of 2025

¶3

Shalu Tiwari

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

	Versus
Pawan Tiwari	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Adarsh Kumar Maurya, Alka Rani, Ambrish Kumar, Rupali Srivastava, Shubham Yadav :

¶6

Court No. - 10

¶7

HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

¶8

IA 1 of 2025

¶9

Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶10

This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶11

Office has reported a delay of 34 days in filing the appeal.

¶12

There is no objection by the other side.

¶13

On due consideration of the submissions and the affidavit filed in support of the application, the ground shown is sufficient to condone the delay.

¶14

The application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶15

Office is directed to register it as regular Appeal.

¶16

Order on Appeal

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶18

This appeal has been filed, challenging the judgment and order dated 27.02.2025, passed by Additional Principal Judge(III^rd ), Family Court, Lakhimpur Kheri in Case No.804/2020.

¶19

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and order has been passed wrongly and illegally without considering the evidence and material on record, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

¶20

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and on

¶21

FAPLD No. 166 of 2025

¶22

¶23

perusal of the impugned judgment and order,it is apparent that the impugned judgment has been passed after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties, in which the appellant could not prove the allegations of cruelty against the respondent and a plea was also taken that the respondent has relations with her aunt but neither she has been impleaded as a party nor it could be proved and despite repeated query, learned counsel for the appellant also failed to argue any ground against the impugned judgment.

¶24

The impugned judgment has been passed by a reasoned and speaking order, considering the evidence and material on record. Thus, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment. The appeal is misconceived. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

October 10, 2025 Akanksha Sri/-

¶26

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶27

Digitally signed by :- AKANKSHA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shalu Tiwari v. Pawan Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalu Tiwari v. Pawan Tiwari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Meera Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sharif Khan @ Shareed Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Rajiya and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Akram Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Rahul Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and Others