Disposed¶8

Akansha Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2025NA529/1842/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 529 BNSS application; expeditious disposal direction; time-bound order; Family Court Kanpur Nagar; Case No. 983 of 2020; Section 125 CrPC maintenance case; pending since 2020; one-year timeline from certified copy; no unnecessary adjournment; stakeholders bound to assist; overburdened Family Courts Uttar Pradesh; 2025:AHC:118313; APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. 1842 of 2025; Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; Order Date 21.7.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the court concerned to decide Case No. 983 of 2020 (Section 125 CrPC) in accordance with law preferably within one year from production of the certified copy of the order; no unnecessary adjournment to be sought/granted; all stakeholders (Presiding Officer, police and execution authorities, advocates, parties, staff) bound to assist in expeditious disposal. ¶8

Akansha Singh vs State of U.P. and Another — Maintenance and Alimony | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the court concerned (Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar) should be directed to decide Case No. 983 of 2020 under Section 125 CrPC, pending since 2020, expeditiously within a stipulated period.

¶1

Court's answer

The court concerned is directed to decide Case No. 983 of 2020 in accordance with law, preferably within one year from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before it, keeping in view the heavy work load in the said Court.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

No unnecessary adjournment shall be sought or granted in the case.

¶6

Key takeaways

Besides the Presiding Officer, all stakeholders i.e. police and execution authorities, advocates, parties to the case, staff etc. are bound by the order and responsible to assist the Court in every manner for expeditious disposal of the case.ratio¶7
Finding: the case is pending since 2020 and opposite party no.2 is not cooperating with the progress of the case.ratio¶5
Judicial notice taken that the Family Courts in the State of U.P. are overburdened with cases and are 'gasping for breath'.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; Order dated 21.7.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:118313) disposed of an application under Section 529 BNSS (Application No. 1842 of 2025) filed by Akansha Singh, wife of opposite party no.2, seeking expeditious disposal of Case No. 983 of 2020 under Section 125 CrPC (P.S. Bidhnoo, District Kanpur Nagar), pending since 2020 before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No. 3, Kanpur Nagar. Noting from the order sheets that the case was pending since 2020, that opposite party no.2 was not cooperating, and that the Family Courts in U.P. are overburdened ('gasping for breath'), the Court directed the court concerned to decide the case in accordance with law preferably within one year from the date of production of the certified copy of the order, keeping in view the heavy work load; directed that no unnecessary adjournment be sought or granted; and declared that besides the Presiding Officer, all stakeholders (police and execution authorities, advocates, parties, staff) are bound by the order to assist in expeditious disposal.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:118313

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 1842 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Akansha Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjeev Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application under Section 529 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to direct the court concerned to decide the Case No. 983 of 2020, under Section 125 CrPC, Police Station- Bidhnoo, District- Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Room No. 3, Kanpur Nagar expeditiously within stipulated period.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the aggrieved wife of opposite party no.2 and the present case is pending since 2020. It is also submitted that the opposite party no.2 is not cooperating with the Court concerned and is adopting delaying tactics in disposal of the said.

¶9

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶10

It reveals from the perusal of the order sheets that the aforesaid case is pending since 2020. The opposite party no.2 is not cooperating with the progress of the case. This Court is also aware of the fact that the Family Courts in the State of U.P. are overburdened with the cases and are, as such gasping for breath.

¶11

In the circumstances, the Court concerned is directed to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law preferably within one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it, keeping in view the heavy work load in the said Court. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted.

¶12

It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder of the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and execution authorities, advocates, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case.

¶13

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of .

¶14

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Fhd

¶15

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Akansha Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akansha Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushpa Verma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sri Mangal Traders through Its Proprietor Mohit Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Nagar vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Mamta vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Chanda Devi vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Singh vs State of U.P. and Another