Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed seeking a direction that the trial in C.M. Case No. 22/2012, Rohit Rawat Vs. Smt. Vinita Sharma, filed by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1955 Act') before the Family Court No. 2 Jaipur City, Jaipur be expedited with reference to Section 21B(2) of the Act of 1955 wherein it has been provided that every petition under the 1955 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.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the 1955 Act, was filed on 21 -12 -2011 seeking a declaration that the marriage on 1 -12 -2001 between the petitioner and the respondent, Vinita Sharma, was void. He submits that the respondent -wife has been served, reply to petition as also the rejoinder has already been filed. Since 12 -2 -2013 the matter is pending for settlement of the dispute. His case is that in terms of Section 21B(2) of the 1955 Act, the concerned court ought to have been conscious of the statutory provision and expedited the trial. Yet the trial in the matter is proceeding at very slow pace. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after service of notice on the respondent wife it was incumbent upon the concerned court to fast track the trial with the intent of completing it in six months. Instead the trial is not proceeding as warranted under the 1955 Act and dates of over a month or two are being fixed on each occasion. Counsel submits that the court ought to have granted adjournment only as an exception and not as a right on the mere asking. He submits that adjournments should have been only be by way of reasoned orders only with the object of ensuring a fair trial and not an instrument of harassment of the petitioning husband.
(3.) HAVING heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the order -sheets of the family court as filed before this Court, I am of the view that in the facts of the case, it is just and proper to direct the concerned Family Court to conclude the trial in the divorce petition filed by the petitioner within a period of six months from the next date of hearing. Adjournment in the matter shall not be granted without just cause by a reasoned order on a proper application being filed to the satisfaction of the Family Court.;