Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5917 of 2018 Petitioner :- Nitesh Pandey Respondent :- Smt.Shikha Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Ashish Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
In view of the order proposed to be passed, notices need not go to private respondents.
The petitioner, who is husband, is before this Court for a direction to Fast Track Court, 1st, Varanasi to decide H.M.P. No.1444 of 2016 (Nitesh Pandey v. Smt. Shikha) under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act within stipulated period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner apprises to the Court that the petitioner as well as the respondent are residing in Netherlands and proceeding under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act had been initiated by the petitioner for dissolution of marriage. When the matter was taken up before the Principal Judge, Family Court on 1st September, 2017, the matter was referred to the Mediation Center and the parties were directed to appear before the Mediation Center on 11st September, 2017, failing which it was provided that the petition filed under Section 13 would stand dismissed. The Principal Judge has also fixed the next date in the matter on 10th November, 2017. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner by preferring First Appeal No.644 of 2017 (Nitesh Pandey v. Smt. Shikha) in which the Division Bench of this Court relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishna Veni Nagam v. Harish Nagam, (2017) 4 SCC 150 has disposed of the said first appeal on 11.9.2017 with following observations:-
"This First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 19841 to assail the order dated 1 September 2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi.
The appellant had filed an application under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 for dissolution of the marriage. On 1 September 2017, when the matter was taken up, the Principal Judge directed the matter to be referred to the Mediation Centre and also directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre on 11 September 2017, failing which the petition filed under Section 13 of the Act would stand dismissed. The Principal Judge also fixed 10 November 2017 as the next date in the matter.
It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that both the appellant (husband) and the respondent (wife) are residing in Netherlands. It has also been stated that in fact the appellant had left for Netherlands on 3 September 2017 and the respondent subsequently left for Netherlands on 8 September 2017. It has, therefore, been stated that another date convenient to both the parties may be fixed for appearance before the Mediation Centre instead of 11 September 2017 as it would not be possible for both the appellant and the respondent to appear before the Mediation Centre. It has also been stated that the proceedings may be conducted by Video Conferencing as was observed by the Supreme Court in Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam.
These are matters which need to be brought to the notice of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi by the appellant by moving an appropriate application.
We, accordingly, dispose of this First Appeal with an observation that the appellant may move an application for recall of the order dated 1 September 2017 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi and the Court has no reason to doubt that if such an application is filed an appropriate order shall be passed fixing another date for the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre."
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforementioned order passed by the first appellate court has been brought into notice to the Principle Judge, Family Court by detailed representation dated 4.10.2017 appended as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further apprises to the Court that on the said application cognizance has been taken by the Principal Judge, Family Court on 4.10.2017. Thereafter, the matter was listed on various occasions. On the basis of para 21, 22, and 23 of the writ petition, it is sought to be contended that the application so filed by the petitioner may be decided expeditiously without according any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. It is also apprised that on every date the mother of the contesting respondent always remains present in the Court but till now no written statement has been filed by the contesting respondent.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the writ petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the Fast Track Court to consider and decide the aforesaid petition in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but certainly after giving opportunity to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost. It is made clear that in case the defendant-respondent is not inclined to file written statement well within time as has been stipulated by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Varanasi, the Principal Judge would be at liberty to proceed exparte in the matter and finalise the proceedings.
Order Date :- 21.8.2018 SP/