SMT NIDHI CHOUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5810 of 2026

Smt Nidhi Choudhary
                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                  .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                                    :     In Person
Counsel for Respondent(s)                                    :     C.S.C.

Court No. - 5
                      HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard petitioner in person and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

3. In view of the order which is bring proposed to be passed, notices are
not being issued to the second respondent.

4. The petitioner herein had earlier approached this Court while filing
First Appeal No. 425 of 2025 along with First Appeal No. 1135 of 2025
which came to be decided on 28.01.2026, order whereof is quoted
hereinunder.-

"1. Two appeals are before us. Both have been filed by appellant, who was wife in the
marriage dissolved on ex-parte judgment dated 28th October, 2024 of the Family
Court. First Appeal no.425 of 2025 is appeal against the ex-parte judgment. It was
filed on delay, condoned and admitted. First Appeal no.1135 of 2025 is appeal against
subsequent judgment dated 8th September, 2025 of the Family Court rejecting
appellant's application for condonation of delay and setting aside the ex-parte
judgment, inter-alia, on the ground of embarrassment since, the earlier appeal
already stood admitted and we had called for the record. Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey,
learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and Mr. Dileep Kumar Pandey,
learned advocate for respondent.

2. We think that dealing with First Appeal no.425 of 2025 will lead to disposal of both
appeals. Said appeal was heard by us on 22nd May, 2025 on appellant appearing in
                                                                A227 No. 5810 of 2026
                                    2


person. We reproduce below paragraphs 3 to 6 from order made that day.

"3. It appears from impugned judgment, parties got married on 22nd October, 2023.
We infer so because claim in respondent's petition was to declare the marriage dated
22nd October, 2023, as null and void. It further appears, it was second marriage for
both parties. Respondent was successful in obtaining finding from the Family Court
that appellant had not duly obtained dissolution of the marriage from her first
husband, one Naru Gopal Singh. The judgment was made ex parte against appellant
on the Family Court having earlier on 15th October, 2024 found sufficiency of
service.

4. Before the Family Court, there were several documents tendered by respondent.
They are, inter alia, photos of wedding of appellant and her alleged former husband-
Naru Gopal Singh, their rent agreement executed in year 2013, documents relating to
several cases under Information Technology Act, 2000 and provisions in Indian Penal
Code, 1860, pending in Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta as well as Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi. Based on the documentary evidence, the Family Court concluded
in favour of respondent, to declare the marriage void.

5. We reproduce below paragraph-6 from our order dated 15th May, 2025.

"Appellant is relying on decree dated 5th July, 2023 dissolving her prior marriage on
mutual consent in context of her subsequent marriage to respondent having been
declared null and void. We require English translation of impugned judgment to be
made by the Registry on or before adjourned date."

Appellant, at that hearing, had handed up judgment dated 5th July, 2023 as also
decree of said date made by the Principal Judge, Family Court, West District, Tis
Hazari Court, Delhi in H.M.A no.1942 of 2023 (Manish Ahuja and Nidhi Ahuja @
Nidhi Mallik) under section 13-B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

6. It appears from said judgment dated 5th July, 2023, appellant and said Manish
Ahuja had a daughter from their marriage. There was agreement for permanent
alimony at Rs.30 lakhs to be paid to appellant. There is no mention of aforesaid cases
under Information Technology Act, 2000 nor Indian Penal Code, 1860. It follows,
Manish Ahuja and Naru Gopal Singh are separate persons."

3. On the subsequent appeal filed and the record of the case earlier called for, we
perused the order-sheet regarding service. We see that the process server said, he
                                                                A227 No. 5810 of 2026
                                       3


found appellant outside the house. She took the summons, read the contents and
returned it to him. There followed paper publication and then ex-parte hearing and
the judgment. Appellant thereafter said, on discovery she protested against the
statement made by the process server. It is sufficient to say that the discovery was
prior to 15th May, 2025, when she had moved her delayed appeal against the
impugned ex-parte judgment. We have no reason to disbelieve the process server. This
goes against appellant.

4. Nevertheless, it will appear from reproduced paragraphs 3 to 6 of order dated 22nd
May, 2025 that the Family Court while passing impugned ex-parte judgment found the
facts to be, for both parties it was second marriage. Appellant has produced decree
dated 5th July, 2023 of concerned Family Court dissolving her first marriage. It was
prior to solemnization of marriage with respondent. He, however, alleged and
obtained impugned ex-parte judgment on contention appellant's first marriage was
subsisting, when she got married to him. Appellant's conduct in not receiving the
summons can be mitigated by award of costs. She needs an opportunity to adduce
evidence. Rule 33 in order XLI, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 gives ample power to
the appellate Court to make, inter-alia, any order or to make such further or other
decree or order as the case may require.

5. Impugned ex-parte judgment dated 28th October, 2024 is set-aside in appeal. The
matrimonial case is restored to the Family Court on direction upon appellant to pay
Rs.10,000/- as cost to respondent. The payment must be tendered to Registrar General
along with website copy of this order. It is be made by 16th February, 2026. Omission
to tender the payment by 16th February, 2026 will cause automatic recall of this order
with consequence of dismissal of both appeals. Registry will communicate this
judgment after 16th February, 2026 and by 23rd February, 2026, to the Family Court.

6. Both the appeals are disposed of.

7. Mr. Sudhanshu Pandey submits, the Family Court at Bulandshahar does not have
jurisdiction. Both parties are presently residing at Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh. Upon payment of cost for the restoration, appellant will be at liberty to
either take up the point of jurisdiction as a contention or apply for transfer, as she
may be advised."

5. Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the Principal Family
Judge, District Bulandshahr to decide the proceedings in the Civil Suit
                                                                                            A227 No. 5810 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    No. 1181 of 2024 under the provisions contained under Section 21B of
                                    the Hindu Marriage Act and to conclude the trial without granting
                                    unnecessary adjournments.

                                    6. In the opinion of the Court, once a statute provided for timeline as
                                    encapsuled under Section 21B of the Hindu Marriage Act then the
                                    proceedings are to be decided with most expedition. Bearing in mind the
                                    aforesaid factual situation, the court below is directed to conclude the
                                    proceedings as per mandate contained under Section 21B of the Hindu
                                    Marriage Act without granting unnecessary adjournments and in case
                                    adjournments are granted, the same should be on exceptional basis that
                                    should be in those circumstances which are beyond control and
                                    comprehension of the parties and the adjournment so granted should not
                                    be beyond 10 days at a stretch.

                                    7. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of.



                                                                                           (Vikas Budhwar,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Rajesh




Digitally signed by :-
RAJESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad