Court No. - 40
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1190 of 2019 Petitioner :- Aakash Tyagi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record.
Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner/Aakash Tyagi, has filed a divorce petition under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act on 19.12.2018. As the said petition has not been considered and decided on one or other pretext without any fault on the part of the petitioner, so petitioner approached this Court for redressal of his grievances by filing present writ petition with the following main prayer:-
"(i) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ghaziabad to consider and decide Divorce Petition No. 2563/2018 (Aakash Tyagi Vs. Smt. kanchan Tyagi) under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, expeditiously as earliest possible in the interest of justice. "
Learned counsel for petitioner while pressing the said relief submits that trial court may be directed to decide the Divorce Petition No. 2563/2018 (Aakash Tyagi Vs. Smt. kanchan Tyagi) under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act at an early date.
After hearing learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the records, as per the provisions of Section 13-B of Hindu marriage Act, the statutory period provided to decided the matter is of six months, so the relief as prayed by petitioner cannot be granted because the same is contrary to the period as fixed under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act, taking into consideration the said facts as well as the fact that it is well settled legal principles of law that if a particular mode is provided to do a particular thing then the same shall be done in the said manner (See. Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand Versus State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527, Patna Improvement Trust Vs. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and others, AIR 1963 Sc 1077; State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh and other, AIR 1964 SC 358; Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Company Law Board AIR 1967 SC 295, Chettiam Veettil Ammad and another Vs. Taluk Land Board and others, AIR 1979 SC 1573; State of Bihar and others Vs. J.A.C. Saldanna and others, AIR 1980 SC 326, A.K. Roy and another Vs. State of Punjab and others; AIR 1986 SC 3160; State of Mizoram Vs. Biakchhawna, 1995 (1) SCC 156.) For the foregoing reasons, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019/Ravi/-