Allahabad High Court

SMT. NEHA CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: AJAY KUMAR II

Holding

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

Summary

Smt. Neha Chaudhary filed a Section 23 application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 for interim maintenance in a Ghaziabad court, which remained pending. She approached the Allahabad High Court seeking a direction that the lower court decide the application within a stipulated period. The High Court examined Supreme Court pronouncements that time‑bound schedules may be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances. Finding no exceptional situation, the Court refused to impose a fixed timeline, but reiterated the Supreme Court’s guidelines that interim maintenance should be decided within four to six months after affidavits are filed and directed the lower court to comply. The writ application was therefore dismissed, with a direction to the trial court to adhere to the established guidelines.

Issues considered

Can the High Court direct a lower court to dispose of a Section 23 interim maintenance application within a fixed time‑frame?
Whether the circumstances in the present case constitute an 'exceptional' situation justifying a time‑bound schedule?
How do the Supreme Court guidelines in Rajnesh v. Neha apply to the disposal of interim maintenance applications?

Legislation cited

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — s. 23

Subjects

Domestic Violence Act
interim maintenance
Section 23
time‑bound disposal
exceptional circumstances
Supreme Court guidelines
family law
procedural law

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4235 of 2026

Smt. Neha Chaudhary
.....Applicant(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kumar Dhananjay
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 applicant with prayer to
direct the learned Court concerned to decide/expedite the application
under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 filed in Case No. 1725 of 2024 (Smt. Neha Chaudhary vs.
Ayush Pratap Singh and another), P.S. Kavi Nagar, District Ghaziabad,
pending before Civil Judge (J.D.)/F.T.C.-1 (Crime Against Women),
Ghaziabad within stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 Case No. 1725 of
2024 was filed before Court concerned alongwith an application under
Section 23 of Domestic Violence Act for interim maintenance on
29.4.2026 which is still pending and has not been decided till date.
Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned Court concerned 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
NA529 No. 4235 of 2026
2

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, 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 circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious
disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of
present application is hereby refused.
9. 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 a bounden duty of a trial Court
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 interim maintenance. The relevant part of paragraph
72.3(c) of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
NA529 No. 4235 of 2026
3

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."
10. 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. No casual and lackadaisical approach can be
appreciated in delaying disposal of interim maintenance application in
violation of binding directions issued vide Para 72.3(c) of the judgment of
Apex Court in Rajnesh vs. Neha (supra).
11. 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.
12. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with aforesaid
direction.

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
September 11, 2026
Dhirendra/

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…