Allahabad High Court
SMT MANJU RANI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR II
Holding
The High Court held that without showing exceptional circumstances, it cannot issue a time‑bound disposal direction under Section 529 BNSS, and therefore refused the application.
Summary
The applicants, Smt. Manju Rani and another, filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a High Court direction that the Family Court, Muzaffarnagar, decide their interim maintenance application and the pending maintenance case (Case No. 1933 of 2025) within a fixed time‑frame. They argued that the lower court had already granted four adjournments, causing undue delay, and requested a time‑bound schedule for disposal. The State opposed the direction but raised no objection to a time‑bound schedule if the lower court was not overloaded. The High Court examined precedents that time‑bound disposal orders are permissible only in extraordinary circumstances and found that the applicants had not demonstrated any such exceptional situation. Consequently, the Court refused the relief sought, but allowed the applicants to move appropriate applications before the Family Court to highlight facts that may justify expeditious disposal, with a directive that any such application be decided within two weeks. The judgment reiterated the Supreme Court’s guidelines under Section 144 BNSS for speedy interim maintenance and the inherent power of courts to grant ad‑interim relief in cases of intentional delay.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, under Section 529 BNSS, direct a lower Family Court to dispose of a maintenance and interim maintenance application within a fixed time‑bound schedule.
- Whether the circumstances of delay in the present case constitute an 'exceptional circumstance' justifying such a direction.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 144, 529
Subjects
- maintenance
- interim maintenance
- Section 529
- time‑bound disposal
- family court
- BNSS
- exceptional circumstances
- judicial delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3789 of 2026
Smt Manju Rani And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Bhawani Prasad Shukla
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Bhawani Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the
applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed
by the applicants with a prayer to direct the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Muzaffarnagar to consider and decide the application
for interim maintenance as well as maintenance Case No. 1933 of
2025 dated 24.11.2025, under Section 144 of BNSS (Smt. Manju vs.
Saurabh) as expeditiously as possible within stipulated period fixed
by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings
before the Court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time-
bound manner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants
that in this case, an application for interim maintenance as well as
aforesaid case were filed before the learned Court below on
24.11.2025, which are still pending and have not been decided till
date. Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned Court below
be issued to decide the aforesaid interim maintenance application as
well as aforesaid maintenance case within a stipulated period of
time.
4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is
not already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has
observed that every High Court and every Court in the country has a
NA529 No. 3789 of 2026
2
huge pendency, the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of
fixing a time bound schedule for disposal of any case before any
Court unless the situation is extraordinary.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad
vs. State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in
paragraph 42, which is reproduced as under:-
"Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for
disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendecny of various
categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different.
The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the
concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to
certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders
fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in
exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations."
7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time-
bound/expeditious disposal has already been well settled that only
when an exceptional circumstance is made out, a direction for time-
bound/expeditious disposal of such a case can be issued not
otherwise.
8. Learned counsel for the applicants has failed to make out any
exceptional circumstance to issue direction for time-
bound/expeditious disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, the
relief sought by way of present application is hereby refused.
9. Considering the nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the
applicants, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the
applicants apply before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal
of above mentioned case as well as their interim maintenance
application. Therefore, the applicants are given liberty to move
appropriate application(s) before the Court concerned for bringing out
all such facts, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of their
maintenance case and interim application for maintenance, within two
weeks from today and in case, such applications are moved, the
Court concerned shall decide the same within two weeks from the
date of filing of such application(s). If, Court concerned comes to the
conclusion that the case for expeditious disposal is made out, then in
that eventuality, it shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible
within a reasonable period.
NA529 No. 3789 of 2026
3
10. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to draw
attention of Court concerned that the law of maintenance under
Section 144 BNSS is well settled and proceedings under this section
are of summary nature and are intended to enable destitute wives
and children to get maintenance in a speedy manner. The object is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution by providing a speedy remedy for
supply of food, clothing and shelter to the deserted wife and children.
It's primary object is to give social justice to the women, child and
infirm parents etc. It is a bounden duty of a Court concerned to
ensure compliance of binding directions issued by Apex Court in
Rajnesh vs. Neha and another, (2021) 2 SCC 324 in letter and
spirit, one of such binding direction is that the concerned Court must
make an endeavour to decide the interim maintenance application
within a period of four to six months at the latest, by a reasoned
order, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before it (Para
72.10.(j)). The Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and another (supra)
has also framed uniform guidelines in paragraph-72.3.(c) regarding
payment of interim maintenance. The relevant part of paragraph-
72.3.(c) of the aforesaid judgment, is reproduced herein under:
" 72.3.(c). The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of
Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The courts may not grant
more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of
Assets and Liabilities to the respondent.
If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the affidavit, and seeks more
than two adjournments for this purpose, the court may consider exercising the
power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be
wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings.
On the failure to file the affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court
may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on the basis of the
affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;"
11. It is important to observe here that every such Court has inherent
powers to even grant ad-interim maintenance to provide immediate
help to such applicant(s) until proper adjudication of the claim for
interim maintenance, which ad-interim maintenance can be granted, if
there is an intentional delay by the opposite party in disposal of an
application for interim maintenance.
12. A perusal of the certified copy of the order sheet reveals that four
adjournments have already been granted by the concerned Court on
NA529 No. 3789 of 2026
4
23.01.2026, 19.02.2026, 3.4.2026 and 13.08.2026. Such casual and
lackadaisical approach on the part of the Court concerned can not be
appreciated in the light of the above mentioned binding directions
issued by the Apex Court, because such an approach in maintenance
proceedings is directly in the teethes of aforesaid judgment.
13. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment
before the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court
concerned shall pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal
impediment as to why the proceedings of the above mentioned case
cannot be proceeded with.
14. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application
is disposed of.
September 8, 2026
Monika
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…