Jharkhand High Court
Nitin Gupta vs Manasi Poddar on 24 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 487 of 2025
Nitin Gupta, aged about 42 years, son of Shri Raman Gupta, resident of
415, Ranka Park, 5, Lalbagh Road, Opp. St. Joseph Hostel Ground,
Richmond Circle, P.O. Wilson Garden, P.S. Sampangi Nagar, District-
Bengaluru, State Karnatak ......... Petitioner
-VERSUS-
Manasi Poddar, aged about 41 years, wife of Nitin Gupta,
daughter of Shri Biren Poddar, Resident of Flat No. 2BC, R Block, Belair
Apartment, Main Road Ranchi, P.O.-Hindpiri, P.S. Hindpiri, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand ....... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
03/Dated: 24/06/2025
Heard Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the Opposite Party.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India for setting aside order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the learned
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi in Original Suit No. 818 of 2022.
3. Mr. Rohan Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that opposite party herein is the wife of this petitioner and she has instituted
suit for restitution of conjugal life under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
in which petitioner has appeared and filed his written statement. He then
submits that after the opposite party has adduced her evidence along with
other evidences the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner who
happens to opposite party in the said suit. He further submits that without
giving any sufficient opportunity of adducing evidence of the petitioner and
other evidences the learned court has closed the evidence on behalf of the
petitioner and fixed the case for argument. He submits that thereafter the case
has been fixed for judgment observing that it is open to the petitioner herein
to argue the matter on the next date however the argument was not made
and on the date of judgment a petition has been filed on behalf of the
1
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
petitioner submitting that divorce case in Bengaluru filed by the petitioner is
pending and present proceeding may kindly be stayed. He submits that the
said petition was rejected by order dated 13.02.2025 and thereafter
adjournment has been sought on the ground that the impugned order dated
13.02.2025 passed by the learned court the petitioner herein intends to
challenge before the High Court, however later on the the said petition was not
pressed and the matter was fixed for argument. He submits that on
25.02.2025 a petition was filed for seeking an opportunity to examine the
petitioner. He further submits that all these are facts however, in the interest of
justice one opportunity was required to be given by the learned court, but the
learned court has erroneously rejected the petition filed by the petitioner
herein. He submits that one opportunity for examining the petitioner may
kindly be allowed.
4. On the other hand Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the
opposite party opposes the prayer and submits that the learned court has
given several opportunity to the petitioner herein to argue the matter and
adduce evidence inspite of that the petitioner herein has chosen to delay the
proceeding and one after another frivolous petition has been filed and the
learned court has been pleased to give full opportunity to the petitioner. He
submits that the proceeding was instituted on 01.11.2022 and 02.11.2022
the suit was admitted. He further submits that although notice was effected
however appearance was made belatedly by the petitioner herein on
01.08.2023 and on that date the learned court has been pleased to direct both
the sides to appear physically. He further submits that the matter was
adjourned on 19.08.2023 for filing written statement and also for reconciliation
thereafter the petitioner remained absent w.e.f 1.09.2023, 15.09.2023 and
26.09.2023 and in the mean time the transfer petition was filed by the
petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was dismissed by order
dated 13.09.2023. He further submits that the written statement was filed by
2
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
the petitioner on 10.10.2023 thereafter the petitioner herein started taking
adjournment on one or another ground and he was absent on 22.11.2023,
06.12.2023, 21.12.2023, 20.01.2024, 06.02.2024, 27.02.2024. He submits
that on 11.03.2024 status report of mediation was received. He further submits
that the petitioner further remained absent on 20.03.2024, 18.04.2024,
04.05.2024, 10.05.2024, 21.05.2024, 07.06.2024, 20.06.2024. 04.07.2024,
24.07.2024 and thereafter the petitioner appeared on 16.08.2024 and on that
day examination in chief on affidavit has been filed on behalf of the wife and
she was cross- examined by the counsel for the petitioner and thereafter she
was discharged. He submits that again the petitioner herein remain present on
19.09.2024 and , 05.10.2024 and another witness on behalf of wife was
examined and he was cross examined and discharged. Another witness was
examined on 09.10.2024 and on cross examination that witness was
discharged. He submits that On 11.12.2024 the petitioner herein has filed the
petition before the learned court to adduce evidence. Thereafter on 08.01.2025
nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner. On 16.01.2025 again the
petitioner was absent and in that view of the matter the learned court has
been pleased to close the evidence on 16.01.2025 and the matter has been
posted for argument. On 20.01.2025 the petitioner appeared and the
argument was started on behalf of wife opposite party herein. He further
submits that on 22.01.2025 the petitioner herein has taken adjournment. On
28.01.2025 nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the matter was
posted for judgment with liberty to argue any day before the judgment. He
submits that on 11.02.2025 petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner to
stay the proceeding until divorce case is decided in the Family Court,
Bangalore. He further submits that the learned trial court has been pleased
to dismiss the petition dated 11.02.2025 on 13.02.2025 by observing that the
petitioner is only delaying the matter. On 19.02.2025 a petition was filed before
the learned court by the counsel for the petitioner stating that the petitioner
3
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
herein intends to prefer revision against the order dated 13.02.2025 however
later on the said petition was not pressed by the counsel for the petitioner and
thereafter the matter was fixed for argument and further on the date of
argument the petitioner herein remained absent i.e. 21.02.2025. However, the
matter was adjourned on that date considering that lawyers were on strike. He
submits that 25.02.2025 a petition was filed to examine the petitioner as a
witness in the said proceeding which was rejected on that day by the learned
court and in the said order it has been observed that the said petition is not
on affidavit and signed by the petitioner herein. He submits that again time
was taken by the petitioner on 04.03.2025 further on 20.03.2025 and
05.04.2025 on the ground that he wants to file petition before the High Court
challenging the order dated 25.02.2025 and again time petition was filed on
21.04.2025 and thereafter on 07.05.2025 this petition has been filed. He
submits that after filing of the present C.M.P. on the ground of filling C.M.P. two
adjournment has been taken by the petitioner on 14.05.2025 and 12.06.2025
before the learned court and now the case is fixed for 14.07.2025.
5. By way of submitting all these facts, he submits that the petitioner
herein only tried to delay the matter inspite of several opportunities provided
by the learned court. He submits that Family Court Act has been considered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of " Bhuwan Mohan Singh Vs.
Meena and others" reported in (2015) 6 SCC 353 wherein para 13 spirit of
that Act has been discussed which as under:--
"13. The purpose of highlighting this aspect is that in the case at hand
the proceeding before the Family Court was conducted without being
alive to the Objects and Reasons of the Act and the spirit of the
provisions under Section 125 of the Code. It is unfortunate that the
case continued for nine years before the Family Court. It has come to
the notice of the Court that on certain occasions the Family Courts have
been granting adjournments in a routine manner as a consequence of
which both the parties suffer or, on certain occasions, the wife becomes
the worst victim. When such a situation occurs, the purpose of the law
gets totally atrophied. The Family Judge is expected to be sensitive to
the issues, for he is dealing with extremely delicate and sensitive issues
pertaining to the marriage and issues ancillary thereto. When we say
this, we do not mean that the Family Courts should show undue haste
or impatience, but there is a distinction between impatience and to be
4
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
wisely anxious and conscious about dealing with a situation. A Family
Court Judge should remember that the procrastination is the greatest
assassin of the lis before it. It not only gives rise to more family
problems but also gradually builds unthinkable and Everestine
bitterness. It leads to the cold refrigeration of the hidden feelings, if still
left. The delineation of the lis by the Family Judge must reveal the
awareness and balance. Dilatory tactics by any of the parties has to be
sternly dealt with, for the Family Court Judge has to be alive to the fact
that the lis before him pertains to emotional fragmentation and delay
can feed it to grow. We hope and trust that the Family Court Judges
shall remain alert to this and decide the matters as expeditiously as
possible keeping in view the Objects and Reasons of the Act and the
scheme of various provisions pertaining to grant of maintenance,
divorce, custody of child, property disputes, etc."
6. He submits that dilatory tactics has been considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Ramrameshwari Devi and Others
Vs. Nirmala Devi and others" reported in (2011) 8 SCC 249 . He refers
to para 28, 29 and 43 of the said judgment which is quoted hereinbelow:-
"28. It is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances of
this case that the appellants have seriously created obstacles at every
stage during the course of trial and virtually prevented the court from
proceeding with the suit. This is a typical example of how an ordinary
suit moves in our courts. Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants
on one ground or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further
in the matter.
29. The learned amicus curiae has taken great pains in giving details of
how the case has proceeded in the trial court by reproducing the entire
court orders of the 1992 suit. In order to properly comprehend the
functioning of the trial courts, while dealing with civil cases, we deem it
appropriate to reproduce the order-sheets of the 1992 suit. This is a
typical example of how a usual civil trial proceeds in our courts. The
credibility of the entire judiciary is at stake unless effective remedial
steps are taken without further loss of time. Though original litigation
and the appeal commenced from 1977 but in order to avoid expanding
the scope of these appeals, we are dealing only with the second
litigation which commenced in 1992.
43. We have carefully examined the written submissions of the learned
amicus curiae and the learned counsel for the parties. We are clearly of
the View that unless we ensure that wrongdoers are denied profit or
undue benefit a from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to
control frivolous and uncalled for litigations. In order to curb uncalled
for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no
incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation. It is a matter of common
experience that court's otherwise scarce and valuable time is consumed
or more appropriately, wasted in a large number of uncalled for cases."
7. Relying on above judgment, he submits that Hon'ble Supreme
Court has sternly deprecated unnecessary adjournment.
8. On the point of unnecessary adjournment and misuse of
adjournment he further relied in the case of " Ishwarilal Mali Rathod Vs.
Gopal and others" reported in 2021 (12) SCC 612. He refers to para 7, 9
5
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
and 12 of the said judgment which is quoted herein below:-
"7. As observed hereinabove, the present is a classic example of
misuse of adjournments granted by the court It is to be noted that the
respondents herein - original plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction, arrears
of rent and mesne profit as far back as in the year 2013. That thereafter
despite the repeated adjournments sought and granted by the court and
even twice the adjournments were granted as a last opportunity and
even the cost was imposed, the defendant failed to cross-examine the
plaintiffs witness. Although adequate liberty was given to the defendant
to cross-examine the plaintiffs witness, they never availed of the same
and went on delaying the proceedings by repeated prayers b of
adjournment and unfortunately the trial court and even subsequently,
the High Court continued to grant adjournment after adjournment and
as such for eviction Such approach is wholly condemnable. Law and
professional ethics do not permit such practice. Repeated adjournments
on one or the other pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is an insult
to justice and concept of speedy disposal of cases. The petitioner-
defendant acted in a manner to cause colossal insult to justice and to
concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation.
9. Today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute
problem of delay which ultimately affects the right of the litigant to
access to justice and the speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of
such delay and dilatory tactics and asking repeated adjournments by the
advocates and mechanically and in routine manner granted by the
courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and
not getting the timely justice it may shaken the trust and confidence of
the litigants in the justice delivery system. Many a time, the task of
adjournments is used to kill justice. Repeated adjournments break the
back of the litigants. The courts are enjoined upon to perform their
duties with the object of strengthening the confidence of common man
in the institution entrusted with the administration of justice. Any effort
which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in
the justice dispensation has to be discouraged. Therefore the courts
shall not grant the adjournments in routine manner and mechanically
and shall not be a party to cause for delay in dispensing the justice. The
courts have to be diligent and take timely action in order to usher in
efficient justice dispensation system and maintain faith in rule of law.
12. Time has now come to change the work culture and get out of the
adjournment culture so that confidence and trust put by the litigants in
the justice delivery system is not shaken and Rule of Law is maintained."
9. Relying on above judgments he submits that several adjournments
have been taken by the petitioner however, the C.P.C. and Rule 22 of Family
Court, Jharkhand High Court Rules, 2022 clearly suggests that unless there are
circumstances justifying to adjournment to meet the ends of justice
unnecessary adjournment should not be granted.
10. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties the Court has gone through the materials on record as well as the list
of dates supplied by learned counsel for the opposite party. From that list of
dates what has been noted in the argument of Mr. Indrajit Sinha so far
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
adjournment is concerned, that is fortified. In the above background learned
court has given adjournment at each and every stage on the petition filed by
the petitioner as indicated hereinabove and inspite of that the petitioner has
chosen not to conclude the case before the learned court and only took
adjournment on flimsy ground. Once a petition dated 19.02.2025 was filed
before the learned court saying that the petitioner intends to file revision
against the order dated 13.02.2025 however later on the said petition was not
pressed. Even after 25.02.2025 petition was filed by the petitioner to examine
himself before the learned court and the learned court by the cogent reason
has been pleased to reject the same holding that the petitioner herein filed one
petition after another intends to delay in disposal of the present case. On
04.03.2025, 20.03.2025 and 05.04.2025 further adjournment was taken on
the ground that petition was filed before the High Court challenging order
dated 25.02.2025 and last opportunity was taken on 21.04.2025 saying that
CMP has been preferred and CMP has been filed on 07.05.2025. Further two
adjournments have been taken on 14.05.2025 and 12.06.2025 on the ground
that CMP ahs been preferred before the High Court. Thus, the conduct of the
petitioner in the entire proceeding clearly suggests that the intention of the
petitioner herein only to delay the proceeding either way and for that frivolous
petition has been filed before the learned court and the learned court
provided opportunity inspite of that the petitioner herein has not taken any
effort to conclude his case. The repeated adjournment on one and another
pretext and adopting the dilatory tactics is said to be an insult to justice and
concept of speedy disposal of cases which has been held in three of the
cases relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein in the case of
Bhuwan Mohan Singh, Ramrameshwari Devi and Ishwarilal Mali
Rathod (supra).
11. The facts depicted above clearly shows that the husband adopted
all dilatory tactics to postpone the hearing of the case. The learned judge
( 2025:JHHC:16663 )
because of his firmness was able to control the proceeding. The Court must
conscious that the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act is required to be
decided within six months from the date of appearance of other side. In the
present case how the adjournment has been taken and the learned court has
allowed the adjournment, has been discussed hereinabove and in view of that
the learned judge remained liberal in the matter of granting adjournment to
the petitioner. Critic say that the judicial system is suffering from the malady of
delay and has questioned the justice delivery on this score. The maxim justice
delayed is justice denied applied with more vigour in matrimonial matter. In
this backdrop the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the husband was not given sufficient opportunities to examine himself
is without any substance. It is his own creation and has to bear for the same.
Learned Court has rightly placed the matter for judgment with liberty to argue
the matter on behalf of the petitioner however, the petitioner chosen to delay
the matter by way of filing one or another petition.
12. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order
passed by the learned court.
13. In the result the Court finds that there is no merit in the present
petition accordingly this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be paid
by the petitioner before the learned court and the learned court is expected
that he will pronounce the judgment on the next date of hearing if on the next
date of hearing the petitioner does not appear and not argue the matter.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/A.F.R.
