Allahabad High Court
ANURADHA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR II
Holding
A direction for time‑bound disposal cannot be granted under Section 529 BNSS absent an exceptional circumstance.
Summary
The applicants filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a court order directing the Family Court, Mau, to decide a pending maintenance case (No. 654 of 2025) within a fixed time. The respondents did not object, provided the lower court was not overloaded. The High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P.) which hold that time‑bound schedules may be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances. The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated any such exceptional circumstance. Consequently, the application for a time‑bound direction was refused, but the applicants were permitted to move a fresh application before the lower court seeking expeditious disposal, with a six‑week deadline for the lower court to decide if such a request is justified.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can issue a direction under Section 529 BNSS for a lower court to dispose of a pending case within a stipulated time‑bound schedule.
- Whether the circumstances in the present case qualify as ‘exceptional’ to justify such a direction.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 144, 529
Subjects
- time‑bound disposal
- pendency of cases
- maintenance proceedings
- Section 529 BNSS
- Section 144 BNSS
- exceptional circumstances
- High Court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4159 of 2026
Anuradha And Another
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vrat Sheel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vrat Sheel, 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,
Mau to expeditiously decide the Maintenance Case No. 654 of 2025
(Anuradha and another vs. Manish Kumar) under Section 144 BNSS, Police
Station Doharighat, District Mau, pending before him, within stipulated
period of time 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 applicant that in this case, an
application under Section 144 BNSS was filed before the learned Court
below, which is still pending and has not been decided till date. Therefore,
he requested that a direction to learned Court below be issued to decide the
aforesaid 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 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.
NA529 No. 4159 of 2026
2
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 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 applicant 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. Therefore, the applicants are given liberty to move
appropriate application before Court concerned for bringing out all such
facts, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of their cases within two
weeks from today and in case, such application is moved, the Court below
shall decide the same within six weeks from the date of filing of such
application. 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.
10. 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.
11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application is
disposed of.
September 9, 2026
Monika
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…