Allahabad High Court
HARINATH ALIAS HARIversusSAMPATIYA DEVI
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court declined to interfere with the impugned order and directed the Family Court to decide the matter within six months.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ under Article 227 challenging an order dated 6 April 2024 of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur, in a maintenance proceeding under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondent from transferring disputed land and claimed a maintenance amount of Rs. 8,000 per month. The High Court, after hearing both parties, held that there was no merit in intervening in the lower court's order and that the matter should be decided by the Family Court in accordance with law. The Court directed the Family Court to hear all affected parties and render a decision within six months of receiving a certified copy of the order. No substantive merits of the maintenance claim were adjudicated, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Family Court dated 6 April 2024 in the maintenance proceeding.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to decide the merits of the maintenance claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956.
- Whether the High Court can direct the lower court to decide the matter within a specified time frame.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Article 227
- supervisory jurisdiction
- maintenance
- Family Court
- Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act
- writ petition
- non-interference
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6019 of 2024
Harinath Alias Hari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sampatiya Devi
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balendra Deo Misra, Upendra Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Achche Lal Singh Yadav, Awadhesh
Kumar Malviya
In Chamber
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Petitioner, Harinath @ Hari, is present in the chamber, who is
identified by Sri B.D. Misra, learned counsel for petitioner. Respondent,
Sampatiya Devi, w/o Harinath is also present, who is identified by Sri
Acche Lal Singh Yadav, learned counsel for respondent.
2. It is contended that in proceedings under Section 18 of The Hindu
Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 an application was filed claiming that
the respondent be paid Rs. 8000/- per month as maintenance amount. An
application 6-C was moved in the said case for restraining the petitioner
from transferring the land in dispute.
3. Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, both the parties are present in
the chamber, who are identified by their respective counsel. After
communicating with the parties, this Court finds that no useful purpose
would be served in keeping the matter pending or calling for counter
affidavit, without causing any interference with the order impugned dated
6.4.2024 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur, in Civil
Misc. Case No. 45 of 2021, writ is being disposed of requiring the
Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghazipur, to proceed with the Civil Misc.
Case No. 45 of 2021 and decide the same, in accordance with law, after
hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of production of certified copy of this order.
4. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
A227 No. 6019 of 2024
2
5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 14, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…