Allahabad High Court
Smt. Poornima Asthana vs Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow ... on 15 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:64099
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 45 of 2024
Smt. Poornima Asthana
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Principal Judge Family Court Lucknow And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rajendra Prasad Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
In Person, Amit Kumar Srivastava, Smt. Suman Lata Singh
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Suman Lata Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 and perused the record.
2. The petitioner - Smt. Pornima Asthana and opposite party No. 3 - Devendra Kumar Srivastava @ Rajesh, are present before this court duly identified by their counsel Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma and Smt. Suman Lata Singh, respectively.
3. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.3 has stated that in this matter mediation is not possible.
4. Taking note of the aforesaid statement as also the prayer sought in the present petition as also the earlier orders passed by this court, the court proceeded to hear the case on merits.
5. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following main relief(s) :-
"(I) To set aside the impugned order dated 18-12-23 annexed as Annexure No.-1 passed by the Learned Principal Judge Family N-1 Court, Lucknow passed in Transfer Application Misc. Case No. 717 of 2023, being illegal, incorrect, perverse, erroneous and resulted in manifest injustice.
(II) To pass an order or direction to O. P. No. 1, to transfer the cases of Petitioner from the Court of O. P. No. 2 to any other appropriate Court."
6. At the very outset, Smt. Suman Lata Singh, who appeared for the opposite party No.3 has stated that the Presiding Officer has been transferred and in his place new incumbent has joined the post and therefore, the present petition has now become infructuous.
7. Aforesaid has not been disputed.
8. Considering the aforesaid as also the various pronouncements of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court on the issue [ See : Rajkot Cancer Society vs. Municipal Corporation, Rajkot, AIR 1988 Guj 63; Pasupala Fakruddin and Anr. vs. Jamia Masque and Anr., AIR 2003 AP 448; Nandini Chatterjee vs. Arup Hari Chatterjee, AIR 2001 Cul 26; as also the judgment dated 12.11.2014 passed in Transfer Application (Civil) No. 519 of 2014 (Amit Agarwal vs. Atul Gupta)], the petition is dismissed as infructuous.
9. However, this court directs the family court concerned to conclude the proceedings pending before it most expeditiously as the same is the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court (See : Anju Garg and another vs. Deepak Kumar Garg, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1314). It is for the reason that the present petitioner is not living in the matrimonial home since 27.02.2001 on account of matrimonial dispute/discord between the petitioner and the opposite party No.3 and after leaving the company of the opposite party No.3, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and this order was which was allowed by the family court vide order dated 14.01.2020, and this order was modified by this court vide order dated 04.01.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No.300 of 2020 (Smt. Poornima Asthana Vs. State of U.P. and another), which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and despite the same, the opposite party No.3, who is working on the post of Head Assistant in the Animal Husbandry Department, has not paid the due amount to the petitioner.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
October 15, 2025
ML/-
