Manish Batra Vs Priya Bhardwaj Batra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

Manish Batra Vs Priya Bhardwaj Batra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction issued to the learned Additional Family Judge-I, Family Court, Dehradun, to decide Original Suit No. 261 of 2024 (Shree Manish Batra vs. Smt. Priya Bhardwaj Batra) expeditiously, strictly in accordance with The Uttarakhand Case Flow Management (for Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2009 and Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, without granting undue adjournments to either party.

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, should direct the learned Additional Family Judge-I, Family Court, Dehradun, to decide Original Suit No. 261 of 2024 (Shree Manish Batra vs. Smt. Priya Bhardwaj Batra) expeditiously within a stipulated time frame. +1 more

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the learned trial court to decide the case strictly in accordance with the Uttarakhand Case Flow Management (for Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2009 and the mandate under Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either party.

Ratio / Principle

Despite appearance of the respondent-wife 15 months ago on 20.05.2024, she has failed to file even the written statement, and from her conduct it appears that she is deliberately protracting the hearing of the said suit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.), 08.09.2025, Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2616 of 2025 [2025:UHC:7906] - Manish Batra v. Priya Bhardwaj Batra. Petitioner moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the Additional Family Judge-I, Family Court, Dehradun, to decide his divorce suit (O.S. No. 261 of 2024, on the ground of cruelty, filed 27.02.2024) expeditiously. The respondent-wife was served and put in appearance on 20.05.2024 but, despite more than 15 months, filed no written statement. Relying on Rule 3(2) of The Uttarakhand Case Flow Management (for Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2009 (Track 1 matrimonial cases to be decided within one year of appearance) and Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (expeditious disposal preferably within six months of service), the Court found the respondent-wife to be deliberately protracting the hearing and disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the trial court to decide the suit strictly in accordance with the said Rules and the statutory mandate, expeditiously and without granting undue adjournments to either party.

2025:UHC:7906

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2616 of 2025 08^th September, 2025

Manish Batra ………..Petitioner

Versus

Priya Bhardwaj Batra ………..Respondent

Presence:-

Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, Advocate with Mr. Varun Agarwal, Advocate, through video conferencing, for the petitioner.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been moved by the petitioner, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the learned Additional Family Judge-I, Family Court, Dehradun, to decide Original Suit No. 261 of 2024, Shree Manish Batra vs. Smt. Priya Bhardwaj Batra , expeditiously within a stipulated time frame.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner filed a divorce suit against the respondent-wife on the ground of cruelty on 27.02.2024. The respondent-wife was served with summons in Original Suit No. 261 of 2024 and put in appearance on 20.05.2024. However, despite lapse of more than 15 months, no written statement has been filed by the respondent-wife.

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the High Court of Uttarakhand has framed “The Uttarakhand Case Flow Management (for Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2009” by exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 3 of the aforesaid Rules categorization has

1

2025:UHC:7906

been made as Track Nos.1, 2 and 3 of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 3(2) of the Rules provides that the Presiding Officer shall endeavor to dispose-off cases under Track 1 within one year, and under Tracks 2 and 3 within two and three years, respectively, from the date of appearance or deemed appearance of the respondent/defendant (opposite party). The case of the petitioner falls in Track 1 being a matrimonial case and shall be endeavoured to be decided within one year.

Apart from this, it is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, mandates that matrimonial cases be decided expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of service.

Relying upon the above-mentioned Rules and statutory provision, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appropriate direction may be issued to the trial court for the expeditious disposal of Original Suit No. 261 of 2024, Shree Manish Batra vs. Smt. Priya Bhardwaj Batra .

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the aforesaid Rules as well as the relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, this Court is of the view that, despite appearance of the respondent-wife 15 months ago on 20.05.2024, she has failed to file even the written statement. From the conduct of the respondentwife, it appears that she is deliberately protracting the hearing of the said suit.

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition may be disposed-off with a direction to the learned trial court to decide the case

2

2025:UHC:7906 strictly in accordance with the aforesaid Rules and the mandate under Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either party.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposedoff, in the above terms.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.09.2025

SK

3