Allahabad High Court

SMT NAGMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: AJAY KUMAR II

Holding

In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the High Court cannot order a time‑bound disposal of the interim maintenance application.

Summary

Smt Nagma filed an application under Section 144 BNSS seeking a direction that the trial Family Court decide her interim maintenance application filed on 30‑01‑2026 on a time‑bound basis. The High Court examined whether it could impose such a schedule, noting Supreme Court pronouncements that time‑bound orders are permissible only in exceptional circumstances. The court found no exceptional circumstance was shown and therefore refused the relief sought. However, it granted the applicant liberty to move a suitable application before the trial court for expeditious disposal, directing that if such an application is filed, the trial court must decide it within two weeks and, if warranted, decide the interim maintenance expeditiously. The judgment reiterated the Supreme Court’s guidelines for a four‑to‑six‑month window for interim maintenance decisions.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can direct a time‑bound disposal of an interim maintenance application under Section 144 BNSS.
Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying such a direction.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 144

Subjects

interim maintenance
time‑bound disposal
exceptional circumstances
Family Court
Section 144 BNSS
procedural law
high court direction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3983 of 2026

Smt Nagma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Pandey, Rajesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused material on record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicants with prayer to
direct the learned trial court to decide/expedite the interim maintenance
application dated 30.01.2026 filed under Section 144 BNSS as Case No. 209
of 2026 (Smt. Nagma vs. Ameen) pending before Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court No. 4, Agra expeditiously as possible within any
stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings before the
Court concerned as far as disposal of interim maintenance application is
concerned be directed to be concluded in a time bound manner. It is
submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, an
application for interim maintenance was filed on 30.01.2026 in a case
instituted under Section 144 BNSS for maintenance on 30.01.2026, which is
still pending and has not been decided till now. Therefore, he requested that
a direction to learned trial Court be issued to decide the aforesaid application
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 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
extra ordinary.
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,
NA529 No. 3983 of 2026
2

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 pendency 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 petitioner has failed to make out any exceptional
circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/ expeditious disposal of
interim maintenance application, at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by
way of present application is hereby refused.
9. Considering the nature of prayer made by counsel for the applicant, the
interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies before
the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned interim
maintenance application. Therefore, applicant is given a liberty to move an
appropriate application before Court concerned for bringing out all such fact,
which are necessary for expeditious disposal of her interim maintenance
application within two weeks from today, and in case such an application is
moved, the Court concerned shall decide the same within two weeks from
the date of filing of such application. If Court concerned comes to
conclusion that the case for expeditious disposal is made out then in that
eventuality it shall decide the same (interim maintenance application) as
expeditiously.
10. Before parting with the judgment, this Court would like to draw attention
of Court concerned that the law of maintenance is 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 the 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 the bounden duty of a Court concerned to ensure
compliance of directions issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha and
another (2021) 2 SCC 324 in letter and spirit, one of such direction is that
the concerned Court must make an endevour 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 (supra) has also
framed uniform guidelines in paragraph 72.3(c) regarding payment of
NA529 No. 3983 of 2026
3

interim maintenance. The relevant part of paragraph 72.3(c) of the aforesaid
judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
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. The Family
Court/District Court/Magistrate's Court concerned must make an endeavour
to decide the IA for interim maintenance by a reasoned order, within a
period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure
have been filed before the court."
11. It is important to observe here that every such Court has inherent power
to even grant ad-interim maintenance to provide immediate help to the
applicant until proper adjudication of the claim for interim maintenance,
which ad-interim maintenance can be granted if there is an intentional delay
by opposite party in disposal of an application for interim maintenance.
12. 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.
13. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with aforesaid
direction.

September 8, 2026
Dhirendra/
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…