SMT SONAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                 APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4303 of 2026

Smt Sonam
                                                                          .....Applicant(s)
                                         Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                     .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                                   :    Richa Srivastav
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 trial court to decide/expedite the Complaint Case No. 3090 of 2024 (Smt.
Sonam vs. Mayank Kartikey Verma and others), under Section 12 of Domestic
Violence Act, P.S. Hanumant Vihar, District Kanpur Nagar, pending before
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Kanpur Nagar 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 Complaint Case No. 3090 of 2024 was filed
before Court concerned alongwith an application under Section 23 of Domestic
Violence Act for interim maintenance on 24.7.2024 which are still pending and have
not been decided till date. Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned trial court
be issued to decide the aforesaid application/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 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,
                                                                NA529 No. 4303 of 2026
                                    2

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:-
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
                                                                                                    NA529 No. 4303 of 2026
                                                                        3

                                    application for interim maintenance.
                                    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.
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Dhirendra/
                                                                                                  (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)




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