A single judge bench of Justice Ravindra Maithani of Uttarakhand HC dismissed the petition seeking order of expeditious in limine as the parties were themselves had requested to adjourned the case on various occasions.
The court remarked that the way of the proceeding of the case had been taken does not reveal a very happy state of affairs and the cases pertaining to maintenance should be decided expeditiously. However, this Court has no doubt that the court concerned would be cautious that such matters needs expeditious disposal.
Facts:
The petitioner by means of the instant petition, had seeked expeditious disposal of Case No.85 of 2017, Smt. Chanchal vs. Shri Deepak Joshi, pending in the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, District Haridwar (for short, “the case”). It was argued by the learned counsel of the applicant that the case was decided ex parte once in the year 2017 thereafter, it was recalled, but now, for the last many years the case could not be decided.
The record reveals that, in fact, an ex parte order was passed in case no.85 of 2017, Smt. Chanchal vs. Shri Deepak Joshi, by the court of Additional Judge, Family Court, Haridwar, District Haridwar on 01.08.2018. The order was set aside on an application filed by the respondent under Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 07.03.2020. Thereafter, due to COVID-19 Pandemic, the case could not be taken up.
On the following dates, the petitioner was absent. 04.09.2021, 07.12.2021, 10.03.2022, 27.04.2022, 08.06.2022 and on 14.09.2022 the petitioner moved an adjournment application. On 29.09.2022, the respondent moved an application for adjournment.
Observations of the Court
The court after hearing of the parties commented that the way of the proceeding of the case has been taken does not reveal a very happy state of affairs. Parties were absent, but still the case was adjourned, not once, but on multiple occasions. So far as the petitioner is concerned, she herself did not appear on many occasions in the case. In fact, she sought adjournments on some occasions.
They further stated that undoubtedly, the cases pertaining to maintenance should be decided expeditiously. But then, it is the domain of the court concerned in view of the Court and Case Management, keeping in view the pendency of the cases. This Court has no doubt that the court concerned would be cautious that such matters needs expeditious disposal. In view of the above considerations the petition was dismissed in limine.
Decision:
The present petition to seek order of expeditious disposal was dismissed in limine by the court as the records reveal that the parties were not present on various occasion and even seek adjournments on their own.
Case: Smt. Chanchal Joshi vs State Of Uttarakhand and another
Citation: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 19013 of 2022
Coram: Justice Ravindra Maithani
Dated: 15.11.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
