Allahabad High Court
Rahul Sharma vs Smt. Priti Sharma on 23 May, 2023
Bench: Prakash Padia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:114101
Court No. - 5
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6031 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rahul Sharma
Respondent :- Smt. Priti Sharma
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Pandey,Kaushlendra Singh,Rashmi Singh
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
2. The basic relief sought by the petitioner in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to direct the Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Kanpur Nagar to decide the proceeding of Case No.3094 of 2021 ( Rahul Sharma Vs. Smt. Priti Sharma) expeditiously.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions contained under Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the trial under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the sub-section (2) of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. Sub-Section (2) of Section 21-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is quoted as under:-
"(2) Every petition under this Act shall be tried as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent."
4. In support of his arguments, counsel for thepetitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shiv Cotex Vs. Trigun Auto Plast Pvt. Ltd. and others reported in (2011) 9 SCC 678. The paragraph 16 of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a Suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order 17 Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say "justifiable cause" what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only ?sufficient cause" as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 17 CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive."
5. In this view of the matter, it is argued that the court below is duty bound to consider the aforesaid case expeditiously as per the provisions contained under Section 21-B (2) which is quoted as above.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, the instant petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the court below to make every endeavour to decide the aforesaid case expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.
Order Date :- 23.5.2023
saqlain
