In this application for expediting a Section 125 proceeding, the High Court nominee judge directed the trial court to conclude the matter within one year without unnecessary adjournments to serve the interest of justice.
Direction to the trial court to conclude the proceeding expeditiously within one year, without unnecessary adjournments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. 32 Item 26 ssi 07.12. 2020
C.R.R. 1687 of 2020
(via video conference)
In the matter of :- Dr. Sukhendu Dhibar
Ms. Minoti Gomes Mr. Partha Sarathi Das ….for the petitioner
Although this is an application for quashing of a proceeding under Section 125 of the Code, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that her client is not pressing for the same and would instead pray for an expeditious disposal of the proceeding.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits as follows. The petitioner, who is a doctor by profession, got married to the opposite party no.2 in 2013. The wife was an engineer and was working elsewhere. In spite of being employed, the opposite party/wife is receiving interim maintenance allowance as granted by the learned trial court as of now. In 2015, the wife left the matrimonial home and initiated the impugned proceeding. Since then the proceeding has remained pending for no fault on the part of the present petitioner. Although evidence has started, the same could not be concluded. It will be in the
2
interest of justice that the proceeding is directed to be expedited.
No prejudice will be caused to anyone if a direction is passed to expedite the proceeding.
It appears that the proceeding at hand is pending since quite long and it will be in the interest of justice that the same is expedited.
In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I request the learned trial court to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any other parties, preferably within a period of one year from the next date of hearing.
Merits of the case have not been gone into.
With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Jay Sengupta, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the maintenance proceeding and conclude it within one year to interest of justice.
Whether the merits of the case require examination in this revisional application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dr. Sukhendu Dhibar
Mrs. (unnamed in bench record)
Jay Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
