HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PRESENT petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun to proceed with the proceedings of Case No.768 of 2010 "Shri Vijay Garg Vs. Smt. Smita" expeditiously and conclude the same within a period of two months.
Counter affidavit filed in the Court today. Same is taken on record.
Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with the respondent on 10.12.2004 at Bulandshahar, as per Hindu Rites and Ceremonies. Soon thereafter, the relation between the wife and husband got strained and the respondent started living with her parents at her parental home. Petitioner tried to persuade the respondent, but all in vein. On 20.12.2010, the petitioner filed a petition against the respondent under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, which was numbered as Original Suit No.768 of 2010. Thereafter, on 16.11.2011, respondent moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. On 24.01.2012, the petitioner filed objections to the said application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit was instituted in the year 2010, but same has not been decided yet, though as per law, same should have been decided within six months from the date of service of notice on the respondent. She further submitted that the respondent is not interested in the early hearing of the case and is using all sorts of dilatory tactics for delaying the disposal of the suit. She submitted that Section 21- B (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, provides that 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 and in the present case, since notice has already been served on the respondent, direction may be issued for early disposal of suit.
On the other hand, Shri B.S. Thind, learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the petition and submitted that the respondent is not delaying the proceeding. He submitted that infact, the Family Court, Dehradun is occupied with other cases and due to this fact, the hearing of this case has not been concluded. He argued that in case order is passed for early disposal of Case No.768 of 2010, in that event, other persons, who have filed their suit prior filing of suit of the petitioner, will suffer.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.