- (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the trial court to expeditiously dispose of the divorce petition filed by him against the respondent No.2, Smt. Asha Sehra.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1955') provides that trial of a petition under this Act shall, as far as is practicable consistently with the interests of justice, be continued from day to day until its conclusion, unless the court finds the adjournment of the trial beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. COUNSEL submits that the said Section further provides that the court trying a case under the Act shall make an endeavour to conclude the trial within six months from the date of service of notice of the petition on the respondent. It is submitted that as against the mandate of law, a bare look at the order-sheets of the trial court which have been annexed to the writ petition show that the trial court has proceeded with the case at a leisurely pace. It has been submitted that the divorce petition was filed in 2008 and as early as 19.11.2009 reply to the divorce petition had been filed. It is further submitted that in the reconciliation proceedings the respondent No.2 had stated that she was not willing to stay with the petitioner under any circumstance even while the petitioner had indicated his willingness to live with her. COUNSEL submits that thereafter the matter proceeded at a snail's pace till 28.05.2010 when another attempt at a reconciliation was made wherein the petitioner again reiterated his willingness to live with the respondent No.2 and yet the respondent No.2 was quite categorical in her determination not to stay with the petitioner. It is submitted that yet in spite of the failure of reconciliation proceedings on more than two occasions, the learned trial court did not deem it proper to proceed expeditiously with the trial under Section 21B of the Act of 1955. It is submitted that the matter ambled along thereafter. It is submitted that indulgence was granted to the respondent No.2 from time to time on her mere askance and the matter adjourned without recording of reasons as mandated under Section 21B of the Act of 1955. It has been submitted that again on 20.04.2011, the respondent No.2 sought adjournment for cross-examination of the plaintiff witnesses and the matter was adjourned to 25.06.2011. COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner while made to suffer adjournments mechanically and in the interim required to pay maintenance to the respondent No.2 and travels from Delhi to Jaipur for the case in spite of a great inconvenience caused for the reason that he is in Central Government Service working as Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL Delhi. It is submitted that the matter was listed before the trial court on 18.01.2012 where the respondent was given last opportunity to bring her evidence on record. Yet on 17.03.2012 the matter has been adjourned without any recored reason. In these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction for expeditious disposal of the divorce petition filed by him under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the writ petition as also the order-sheets of the trial court annexed thereto. A bare look at the order-sheets of the trial court indicates that Section 21B of the Act of 1955 has been given a complete go-by by the trial court and there is no attempt by the trial court to proceed in accordance with the legislative intent to expeditiously decide the divorce petition under the Act of 1955 one way or the other. Section 21B of the Act of 1955 no doubt provides that expediting of the trial should also be with regard to interests of justice. The words "interests of justice" even though wide open cannot be construed extra liberally and a lopsided view taken in adjourning the matter without recording any reasons as otherwise mandated under Section 21B aforesaid. Adjournments even if warranted in the "interests of justice" have to be reasoned. The order-sheets annexed with the writ petition indicate that largely no reason have been advanced for granting the adjournments. Irrespective of the merits and demerits of the petitioner's case, the petitioner is entitled to an expeditious disposal of his divorce petition filed under Section 13 of the Act of 1955. I am of the view that when reconciliation proceedings have failed on more than two occasions, the trial should be ordinarily expedited unless there is no good cause before the trial court to believe from the conduct of the parties before it that a reconciliation can yet be arrived at. No such situation obtains in the present case. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the Family Court No.1, Jaipur City Jaipur to dispose of the petition filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the next date of hearing before it reckoned from the time when a certified copy of this order is filed before it.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction.;