Recently, the Supreme Court dismissed a civil appeal challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court that restored a petition under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which had earlier been dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court observed that the High Court's order was justified as it merely restored the matter to ensure a fair adjudication on merits. The Court emphasized that litigants must follow proper legal channels instead of directly approaching the Supreme Court without sufficient cause.
The appellant was married to the respondent in 2006 and obtained a decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty in 2016. In subsequent proceedings, the appellant filed a petition under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by the Family Court, Agra, on May 27, 2019, following her absence on multiple hearing dates. The appellant approached the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC, challenging the dismissal. In its order dated December 20, 2019, the High Court set aside the Family Court's dismissal, restoring the petition and directing the Family Court to decide the matter on its merits within three months.
The appellant, appearing in person challenged the High Court’s restoration order before the Supreme Court, arguing against its propriety and seeking intervention. The appellant also submitted an extensive 128-page synopsis detailing various aspects of the case, including unrelated and irrelevant matters. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra, was directed to adjudicate and decide the petition on merits within a stipulated timeline by the High Court order.
The Apex Court noted that the impugned High Court order was in favour of the appellant, as it allowed her dismissed petition to be heard on merits. The Court found no valid reason for the appellant to challenge an order that facilitated her case. The bench observed, “We see absolutely no reason as to why we should interfere with the aforesaid impugned order. The said order is in favor of the appellant and moreover it only directed the Family Court Agra to adjudicate the matter afresh which was earlier dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant, instead of appearing before the Family Court, Agra, has directly challenged this order before this Court, which we think is not proper”.
Further, the Court pointed out the need for litigants to act responsibly and refrain from burdening the judiciary with unnecessary appeals. Highlighting the appellant’s 128-page synopsis, the Court remarked on the importance of concise and relevant submissions, “A synopsis cannot run into 128 pages! Let the Registrar (Judicial) take note of this, particularly the cases where litigants are allowed to appear in person.” The Court underscored the principle that higher judicial forums should not be approached frivolously, particularly when the matter can and should be resolved by the lower courts as directed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s directive to the Family Court, Agra, to hear and decide the Section 125 CrPC petition on merits. The Bench refrained from interfering, stating that the High Court's order served the interests of justice.
Case Title: Deepti Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Order Date: 17.12.2024
Coram: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Asanuddin Amanullah
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
